On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Lori Alt wrote:
> There are no plans to add zfs root support to the existing
> install GUI. GUI install support for zfs root will be
> provided by the new Caiman installer.
Thanks for the info. Follow-up question: is there an ETA for when
Caiman will be integrated into Neva
Reed-Solomon could correct multiple-bit errors, but an effective Reed-Solomon
code for 128K blocks of data would be very slow if implemented in software
(and, for that matter, take a lot of hardware to implement). A multi-bit
Hamming code would be simpler, but I suspect that undetected multi-bit
> "cs" == Cromar Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
cs> It appears that the metadata on that pool became corrupted
cs> when the processor failed. The exact mechanism is a bit of a
cs> mystery,
[...]
cs> We were told that the probability of metadata corruption would
cs> ha
Rich Teer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently installed b95 and ZFS root is great! I used the
> CLI installer because I remember reading that the GUI installer
> doesn't yet support ZFS root. So my question is, what's the
> ETA for support in the GUI installer for ZFS root?
>
> TIA,
>
>
There are
Hi all,
I recently installed b95 and ZFS root is great! I used the
CLI installer because I remember reading that the GUI installer
doesn't yet support ZFS root. So my question is, what's the
ETA for support in the GUI installer for ZFS root?
TIA,
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA
CEO,
My Onli
Config 1: as its got 4 vdev so it will stripe it across them vs the 1 vdev for
Config 2 - for speed
reliability - Both Config probably the same, sods law states second disk to
fail will be in the same vdev.
If you want the space Config 2 but with raidz2
If you want speed - 24 mirrors
See oth
Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cromar Scott wrote:
> Chris Siebenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm not Anton Rang, but:
> | How would you describe the difference between the data recovery
> | utility and ZFS's normal data recovery process?
>
> cks> The data recovery utility should not panic
>
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, John Malick wrote:
> There is a thread quite similar to this but it did not provide a clear answer
> to the question which was worded a bit odd..
>
> I have a Thumper and am trying to determine, for performance, which
> is the best ZFS configuration of the two shown below. A
Cromar Scott wrote:
> Chris Siebenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm not Anton Rang, but:
> | How would you describe the difference between the data recovery
> | utility and ZFS's normal data recovery process?
>
> cks> The data recovery utility should not panic
> cks> my entire system if it runs in
> "mp" == Mattias Pantzare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mp> Or the file was corrupted when you transfered it.
he stored the backup streams on ZFS, so obviously they couldn't
possibly be corrupt. :p
Jonathan, does 'zfs receive -nv' also detect the checksum error, or is
it only detected w
John Malick wrote:
> There is a thread quite similar to this but it did not provide a clear answer
> to the question which was worded a bit odd..
>
> I have a Thumper and am trying to determine, for performance, which is the
> best ZFS configuration of the two shown below. Any issues other than
ff> I have check the drives with smartctl:
ff> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
ff> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 115 075 006Pre-fail
Always - 94384069
ff> 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x00
There is a thread quite similar to this but it did not provide a clear answer
to the question which was worded a bit odd..
I have a Thumper and am trying to determine, for performance, which is the best
ZFS configuration of the two shown below. Any issues other than performance
that anyone may
On Aug 7, 2008, at 10:25 PM, Anton B. Rang wrote:
>> How would you describe the difference between the file system
>> checking utility and zpool scrub? Is zpool scrub lacking in its
>> verification of the data?
>
> To answer the second question first, yes, zpool scrub is lacking, at
> least to
Hello Robert,
Probably it was related to 6436000.
Kernel upgrade which does include fix for above has helped and now I
was able to import the pool without any issues.
--
Best regards,
Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mile
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> As others have noted, the COW nature of ZFS means that there is a
>>> good chance that on a mostly-empty pool, previous data is still intact
>>> long after you might think it is gone. A utility to recover such data is
>>> (IMHO) more likely
Although I don't know for sure that most such errors are in fact single bit in
nature,
I can only surmise they most likely statistically are absent detection
otherwise;
as with the exception of error corrected memory systems and/or check-summed
communication channels, each transition of data betw
| As others have noted, the COW nature of ZFS means that there is a good
| chance that on a mostly-empty pool, previous data is still intact long
| after you might think it is gone.
In the cases I am thinking of I am sure that the data was there.
Kernel panics just didn't let me get at it. Fortun
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> As others have noted, the COW nature of ZFS means that there is a
>> good chance that on a mostly-empty pool, previous data is still intact
>> long after you might think it is gone. A utility to recover such data is
>> (IMHO) more likely to be in the category of forensic
>
> As others have noted, the COW nature of ZFS means that there is a
> good chance that on a mostly-empty pool, previous data is still intact
> long after you might think it is gone. A utility to recover such data is
> (IMHO) more likely to be in the category of forensic analysis than
> a mount (
Anton B. Rang wrote:
> That brings up another interesting idea.
>
> ZFS currently uses a 128-bit checksum for blocks of up to 1048576 bits.
>
> If 20-odd bits of that were a Hamming code, you'd have something slightly
> stronger than SECDED, and ZFS could correct any single-bit errors encountered.
Frank Fischer wrote:
> After having massive problems with a supermicro X7DBE box using AOC-SAT2-MV8
> Marvell controllers and opensolaris snv79 (same as described here:
> http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-66-233341-1) we just
> start over using new hardware and opensolaris 20
After having massive problems with a supermicro X7DBE box using AOC-SAT2-MV8
Marvell controllers and opensolaris snv79 (same as described here:
http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-66-233341-1) we just
start over using new hardware and opensolaris 2008.05 upgraded to snv94. We
James, one question: Do you know if and when yes in which version of
opensolaris this issue is solved? We have the exact same problems using a
Supermicro X7DBE with two Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 (we are on snv79).
Thanks,
Frank
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Chris Siebenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm not Anton Rang, but:
| How would you describe the difference between the data recovery
| utility and ZFS's normal data recovery process?
cks> The data recovery utility should not panic
cks> my entire system if it runs into some situation
cks> that it ut
From: Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Miles Nordin wrote:
>> "re" == Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "tb" == Tom Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>
...
>
> re> In general, ZFS can only repair conditions for which it owns
> re> data redundancy.
tb
2008/8/10 Jonathan Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm in the very unsettling position of fearing that I've lost all of my data
> via a zfs send/receive operation, despite ZFS's legendary integrity.
>
> The error that I'm getting on restore is:
> receiving full stream of faith/[EMAIL
Hello zfs-discuss,
S10, Generic_125100-10, SPARC
# zpool import
pool: mail
id: 7518613205838351076
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices are missing from the system.
action: The pool can be imported despite missing or damaged devices. The
fault tolerance of the pool may be
Hi folks,
Perhaps I was a little verbose in my first post, putting a view people off.
Does anyone else have any ideas on this one.
I can't be the first person to have had a problem with a zfs backup stream. Is
there nothing that can be done to recover at least some of the stream.
As another hel
>I know this is too late to help you now, but... Doesn't "zpool status -v"
>do what you want?
Hi,
No indeed it does not. At the top it just says that resilvering is happening
and that's it. Let me guess... it's to do with the zfs version I'm using?
(I'm on 3)
justin
smime.p7s
Description: S
I suppose an error correcting code like 256bit Hamming or Reed-Solomon
can't substitute as reliable checksum on the level of default
Fletcher2/4? If it can, it could be offered as alternative algorithm
where necessary and let ZFS react accordingly, or not?
Regards,
-mg
On 12-août-08, at 08:
31 matches
Mail list logo
