[zfs-discuss] doing HDS shadow copy of a zpool

2008-09-18 Thread chad . campbell
I appologize if this has been answered already, but I've tried to RTFM and haven't found much. I'm trying to get HDS shadow copy to work for zpool replication. We do this with VXVM by modifying each target disk ID after it's been shadowed from the source LUN. This allows us to import each ta

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to remove any references to a zpool that's gone

2008-09-18 Thread Glenn Lagasse
Hey Mark, * Mark J Musante ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi Glenn, > > Where is it hanging? Could you provide a stack trace? It's possible > that it's just a bug and not a configuration issue. I'll have to recreate the situation (won't be able to do so until next week). I had a zpool status (

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to remove any references to a zpool that's gone

2008-09-18 Thread Richard Elling
Glenn Lagasse wrote: > Hey Mark, > > * Mark J Musante ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> Hi Glenn, >> >> Where is it hanging? Could you provide a stack trace? It's possible >> that it's just a bug and not a configuration issue. >> > > I'll have to recreate the situation (won't be able to d

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to remove any references to a zpool that's gone

2008-09-18 Thread Mark J Musante
Hi Glenn, Where is it hanging? Could you provide a stack trace? It's possible that it's just a bug and not a configuration issue. On 18 Sep, 2008, at 16.12, Glenn Lagasse wrote: I had a disk that contained a zpool. For reasons that we won't go in to, that disk had zero's written all over

[zfs-discuss] How to remove any references to a zpool that's gone

2008-09-18 Thread Glenn Lagasse
I had a disk that contained a zpool. For reasons that we won't go in to, that disk had zero's written all over it (at least enough to cover the entirety of the zpool space). Now when I run zpool status the command hangs when it tries to display information about the now non-existent pool. Simila

Re: [zfs-discuss] x4500 vs AVS ?

2008-09-18 Thread Brent Jones
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ralf Ramge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jorgen Lundman wrote: > >> If we were interested in finding a method to replicate data to a 2nd >> x4500, what other options are there for us? > > If you already have an X4500, I think the best option for you is a cron > job

Re: [zfs-discuss] A couple basic questions re: zfs sharenfs

2008-09-18 Thread Johnson Earls
I believe this is just: zfs set sharenfs='root=host1:host2,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/24:@10.9.9.5' filesystem See the man pages for zfs(1M) (especially the last example) and share_nfs(1M). - Johnson Michael Stalnaker wrote: > All; > > I¹m sure I¹m missing something basic here. I need to do the follow

Re: [zfs-discuss] A couple basic questions re: zfs sharenfs

2008-09-18 Thread Dave
Try something like this: zsfs set sharenfs=options mypool/mydata where options is: sharenfs="[EMAIL PROTECTED]/24:@10.9.9.5/32,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/24:@10.9.9.5/32" -- Dave Michael Stalnaker wrote: > All; > > I’m sure I’m missing something basic here. I need to do the following > things, and ca

[zfs-discuss] A couple basic questions re: zfs sharenfs

2008-09-18 Thread Michael Stalnaker
All; I¹m sure I¹m missing something basic here. I need to do the following things, and can¹t for the life of me figure out how: 1. Export a zfs filesystem over NFS, but restrict access to a limited set of hosts and/or subnets: ie: 10.9.8.0/24 and 10.9.9.5 in. 2. give root access to a zfs file sys

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ read-optimized write?

2008-09-18 Thread Richard Elling
Nils Goroll wrote: > Hi Robert, > > >> Basically, the way RAID-Z works is that it spreads FS block to all >> disks in a given VDEV, minus parity/checksum disks). Because when you >> read data back from zfs before it gets to application zfs will check >> it's checksum (fs checksum, not a raid-z o

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ read-optimized write?

2008-09-18 Thread A Darren Dunham
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Nils Goroll wrote: > Thank you very much for correcting my long-time misconception. > > On the other hand, isn't there room for improvement here? If it was > possible to break large writes into smaller blocks with individual > checkums(for instance those w

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ read-optimized write?

2008-09-18 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Nils Goroll wrote: > > On the other hand, isn't there room for improvement here? If it was possible > to > break large writes into smaller blocks with individual checkums(for instance > those which are larger than a preferred_read_size parameter), we could still > write all of

Re: [zfs-discuss] Tool to figure out optimum ZFS recordsize for a Mail server Maildir tree?

2008-09-18 Thread Nils Goroll
Hi, > It is important to remember that ZFS is ideal for writing new files from > scratch. IIRC, maildir MTAs never overwrite mail files. But courier-imap does maintain some additional index files which will be overwritten and I guess other IMAP servers will probably do the same. Nils

Re: [zfs-discuss] Procedure to follow after zpool upgrade on rpool

2008-09-18 Thread Nils Goroll
Not knowing of a better place to put this, I have created http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/ZFS_rpool_Upgrade_and_GRUB Please make any corrections there. Thanks, Nils ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.

[zfs-discuss] Procedure to follow after zpool upgrade on rpool (was: zpool upgrade wrecked GRUB)

2008-09-18 Thread Nils Goroll
(not sure if this has already been answered) > I have a similar situation and would love some concise suggestions: > > Had a working version of 2008.05 running svn_93 with the updated grub. I did > a pkg-update to svn_95 and ran the zfs update when it was suggested. System > ran fine until I di

[zfs-discuss] RAIDZ read-optimized write?

2008-09-18 Thread Nils Goroll
Hi Robert, > Basically, the way RAID-Z works is that it spreads FS block to all > disks in a given VDEV, minus parity/checksum disks). Because when you > read data back from zfs before it gets to application zfs will check > it's checksum (fs checksum, not a raid-z one) so it needs entire fs > blo

Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] A few questions - small read I/O performance on RAIDZ

2008-09-18 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello Nils, Thursday, September 18, 2008, 11:15:37 AM, you wrote: NG> Hi Peter, NG> Sorry, I have read you post after posting a reply myself. NG> Peter Tribble wrote: >> No. The number of spindles is constant. The snag is that for random reads, >> the performance of a raidz1/2 vdev is essential

[zfs-discuss] typo: [storage-discuss] A few questions : RAID set width

2008-09-18 Thread Nils Goroll
> I Ben's argument, and the main point IMHO is how the RAID behaves in the ^ second ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] A few questions - small read I/O performance on RAIDZ

2008-09-18 Thread Nils Goroll
Hi Peter, Sorry, I have read you post after posting a reply myself. Peter Tribble wrote: > No. The number of spindles is constant. The snag is that for random reads, > the performance of a raidz1/2 vdev is essentially that of a single disk. (The > writes are fast because they're always full-strip

Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] A few questions : RAID set width

2008-09-18 Thread Nils Goroll
Hi all, Ben Rockwood wrote: > You want to keep stripes wide to reduce wasted disk space but you > also want to keep them narrow to reduce the elements involved in parity > calculation. I Ben's argument, and the main point IMHO is how the RAID behaves in the degraded state. When a disk fails,