[zfs-discuss] Thumper / X4500 marvell driver issues

[ Sending this here, as I've publicly complained about this bug on the ZFS list previously, and there have been prior threads related to the fix hitting OpenSolaris ] For those of you who have been suffering marvell device resets and hung I/Os on Sol 10 U4 with NCQ enabled, you should talk to y

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS for write-only media?

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jonathan Loran wrote: >> > I suppose with ditto blocks, this has some merrit. Someone needs to > characterize how errors probigate on different types of WORM media. perhaps > this has already been done. In my experience, when DVD-R go south, they > really go bad at once.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS for write-only media?

Ralf Bertling wrote: I am not an expert, but the MTTDL is in tousands of years when using raidz2 with a hot-spare and regular scrubbing. If you add zpool send/receive and geographically dislocated severs, this may be better than optical media, because you detect the errors early.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS for write-only media?

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jonathan Loran wrote: >>> >> But that's the point. You can't correct silent errors on write once >> media because you can't write the repair. > > Yes, you can correct the error (at time of read) due to having both > redundant media, and redundant bl

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS for write-only media?

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jonathan Loran wrote: >> > But that's the point. You can't correct silent errors on write once > media because you can't write the repair. Yes, you can correct the error (at time of read) due to having both redundant media, and redundant blocks. That is a normal function of

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS async and ZFS zil_disable

On Apr 22, 2008, at 2:00 PM, msl wrote: >> >> On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:16 PM, msl wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> I think the two options are very similar in the >> "cliente side >>> view", but i want to hear from the experts... So, >> somebody can talk >>> a little about the two options? >>> We hav

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS for write-only media?

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >> The "problem" here is that by putting the data away from your machine, >> you loose the chance to "scrub" >> it on a regular basis, i.e. there is always the risk of silent >> corruption. >> > > Running a scrub is pointless since the media is not writeable. :-) > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS async and ZFS zil_disable

> > On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:16 PM, msl wrote: > > > Hello all, > > I think the two options are very similar in the > "cliente side > > view", but i want to hear from the experts... So, > somebody can talk > > a little about the two options? > > We have two different layers here, i think: > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS for write-only media?

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Ralf Bertling wrote: > Hi Bob, > If I was willing to do that I would simply build a pool from file- > based storage being n-ISO images. > It would involve the following steps > 1. create blank ISO images of the size of your media > 2. zpool create wormyz raidz2 image1.iso imag

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS for write-only media?

Hi Bob, If I was willing to do that I would simply build a pool from file- based storage being n-ISO images. It would involve the following steps 1. create blank ISO images of the size of your media 2. zpool create wormyz raidz2 image1.iso image2.iso image3.iso ... 3. Move your data to the pool 4.

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS async and ZFS zil_disable

On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:16 PM, msl wrote: > Hello all, > I think the two options are very similar in the "cliente side > view", but i want to hear from the experts... So, somebody can talk > a little about the two options? > We have two different layers here, i think: > 1) The "async" from

[zfs-discuss] NFS async and ZFS zil_disable

Hello all, I think the two options are very similar in the "cliente side view", but i want to hear from the experts... So, somebody can talk a little about the two options? We have two different layers here, i think: 1) The "async" from the protocol stack, and the other... 2) From the filesy

[zfs-discuss] ZFS jammed while busy

Hi... Here's my system: 2 Intel 3 Ghz 5160 dual-core cpu's 10 SATA 750 GB disks running as a ZFS RAIDZ2 pool 8 GB Memory SunOS 5.11 snv_79a on a separate UFS mirror ZFS pool version 10 No separate ZIL or ARC cache I ran into a problem today where the ZFS pool jammed

Re: [zfs-discuss] how to measure in kernel how much time one operation takes

could you perhaps use dtrace? I think it is a nanoseconds time you have there. Henry On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 1:50 AM, shri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what call to be used in kernel to measure time taken for a operation if > time quantum i s smaller than tick(frequency). > i tried using ddi_