Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

[OMG, you U.S. musicians, wanna do this all the way? Ok, granted.] My dearest aunt is a lesbian! I love my aunt! [mail server, what do you say?] Best, z - Original Message - From: "JZ" To: "ZFS Discussions" Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 2:08 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] (no sub

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

[sorry, baby don't try!] Best, z - Original Message - From: "JZ" To: "ZFS Discussions" Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject) > [OMG, you U.S. musicians, wanna do this all the way? Ok, granted.] > > My dearest aunt is a lesbian! > > I l

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aggregate Pool I/O

Richard Elling wrote: ... > Most folks who want performance data collection all day long will > enable accounting and use sar. sar also uses kstats. Or you can > write your own scripts. Or there are a number of third party tools > which will collect long-term stats and provide nice reports or >

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

[oh, my Lord, I hope it will be a sunny day] 武士道 Best, z - Original Message - From: "JZ" To: "ZFS Discussions" Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject) > [sorry, baby don't try!] > > > > > > > > > Best, > z > > > - Original Message -

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:18:35 PST Antonius wrote: Maybe the other disk has an EFI label? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv105 ++ + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) __

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

>So you're saying zfs does absolutely no right-sizing? That sounds like a >bad idea all around... You can use a bigger disk; NOT a smaller disk. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/list

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create ZPOOL with missing disks?

And one more note: while I could offline both "fake drives" in OpenSolaris tests, the Solaris 10u6 box refused to offline the second drive since it left the pool without parity. {code} [r...@t2k1 /]# zpool status test pool: test state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

I see snow outside. Maybe we don't have early Sun light in the morning, but now is about morning. In my china view (瑞雪兆丰年）, and the Xmas view, snow is a very good thing to have on this Sunday morning. I am happy, the sky did not let me down! Best, z - Original Message - From: "JZ"

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

[this part you may not understand] In the three-kingdoms days, 周瑜 could not believe he said west-wind, and 诸葛 said east-wind, but the sky gave east-wind. 周瑜 was so confused, he died. Today, I am not confused, with the snow, I will live. ;-) Best, z - Original Message - From: "JZ"

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

If so what should I do to remedy that? just reformat it? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aggregate Pool I/O

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Carson Gaspar wrote: > > If you write your own using kstat, you can get accurate sub-second > samples. Sadly you'll either have to use the amazingly crappy Sun perl > or write it in C, as Sun hasn't yet managed to release source for the > kstat perl module (unless

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

meh - Original Message - From: "Antonius" To: Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error > If so what should I do to remedy that? just reformat it? > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aggregate Pool I/O

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Thomas Garner wrote: > Are you looking for something like: > > kstat -c disk sd::: > > Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the documentation for > the above should be at: > > http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/zfs-crypto/gate/usr/src/uts/common/avs

[zfs-discuss] ZFS tale of woe and fail

Morning, For those of you who remember last time, this is a different Solaris, different disk box and different host, but the epic nature of the fail is similar. The RAID box that is the 63T LUN has a hardware fault and has been crashing, up to now the box and host got restarted and both came up

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS tale of woe and fail

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Tom Bird wrote: > Morning, > > For those of you who remember last time, this is a different Solaris, > different disk box and different host, but the epic nature of the fail > is similar. > > The RAID box that is the 63T LUN has a hardware fault and has been > cra

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 5:18 AM, wrote: > > > >So you're saying zfs does absolutely no right-sizing? That sounds like a > >bad idea all around... > > You can use a bigger disk; NOT a smaller disk. > > Casper > > Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every major storage

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why > every major storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I > have an old maxtor drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly > larger than every other mfg on the market? You know, the one who is > no longer making

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

>Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every major >storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I have an old maxtor >drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly larger than every other mfg >on the market? You know, the one who is no longer making their own d

[zfs-discuss] CIFS and zfs

Is it possible to share a folder with cifs without adding a zfs volume? I also have not found out how to share a folder with zfs, is it possible? If it's possible, how? I searched google and this forum but found no answers to my question. Greets Louis Hoefler PS.: I hope this was the right forum

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Tim wrote: > Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every major > storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I have an old maxtor > drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly larger than every other mfg > on the market? You know, the one w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aggregate Pool I/O

Well if I do fsstat mountpoint on all the filesystems in the ZFS pool, then I guess my aggregate number for read and write bandwidth should equal the aggregate numbers for the pool? Yes? The downside is that fsstat has the same granularity issue as zpool iostat. What I'd really like is nread an

Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS and zfs

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 16:38, Louis Hoefler wrote: > Is it possible to share a folder with cifs without adding a zfs volume? Try "zfs set sharesmb=on mypool". > I also have not found out how to share a folder with zfs, is it possible? I don't think sharing an individual folder is possible (or, a

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 16:51, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > I appreciate that in these times of financial hardship that you can > not afford a 750GB drive to replace the oversized 500GB drive. Sorry > to hear about your situation. That's easy to say, but what if there were no larger alternative? Supp

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aggregate Pool I/O

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Brad wrote: > Well if I do fsstat mountpoint on all the filesystems in the ZFS pool, then I > guess my aggregate number for read and write bandwidth should equal the > aggregate numbers for the pool? Yes? > > The downside is that fsstat has the same granularity i

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:17 AM, wrote: > > > >Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every > major > >storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I have an old maxtor > >drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly larger than every other mfg > >on the market?

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: > That's easy to say, but what if there were no larger alternative? > Suppose I have a pool composed of those 1.5TB Seagate disks, and > Hitachi puts out some of the "same" capacity that are actually > slightly smaller. A drive fails in my array, I buy a Hi

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Adam Leventhal wrote: > Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every major >> storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I have an old maxtor >> drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly larger than every other mfg >> on the

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: > > That's easy to say, but what if there were no larger alternative? > > Suppose I have a pool composed of those 1.5TB Seagate disks, and > > Hitachi puts out some o

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Does this all go away when BP-rewrite gets fully resolved/implemented? Short of the pool being 100% full, it should allow a rebalancing operation and possible LUN/device-size-shrink to match the new device that is being inserted? Thanks, -- MikeE -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-bo

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 18:19, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > What do you propose that OpenSolaris should do about this? Take drive size, divide by 100, round down to two significant digits. Floor to a multiple of that size. This method wastes no more than 1% of the disk space, and gives a reasonable (

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create ZPOOL with missing disks?

napshot of the oldpool to the newpool with {code} zfs send -R oldp...@20090118-02-postupgrade | zfs recv -vF -d newpool {code} Larger datasets went in the normal range of 13-20Mb/s (of course, smaller datasets and snapshots ranging in a few kilobytes of size took more time to open-close tha

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: > Most drives are sold with two significant digits in the size: 320 GB, > 400 GB, 640GB, 1.0 TB, etc. I don't see this changing any time > particularly soon; unless someone starts selling a 1.25 TB drive or > something, two digits will suffice. Even then,

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: > > Most drives are sold with two significant digits in the size: 320 GB, > > 400 GB, 640GB, 1.0 TB, etc. I don't see this changing any time > > particularly soon; un

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18 at 13:43, Tim wrote: > You look at the size of the drive and you take a set percentage off... If > it's a "LUN" and it's so far off it still can't be added with the > percentage that works across the board for EVERYTHING ELSE, you change the > size of the LUN at the storage

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Hi Bob, Will, Tim, I also had some off-list comments on my irrelevant comments. So I will try to make this post less irrelevant, though my thoughts on this topic may be off the list discussion line of thoughts, as usual. >From the major storage vendors I know, network storage systems as integrate

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18 at 13:43, Tim wrote: > >> You look at the size of the drive and you take a set percentage off... >> If >> it's a "LUN" and it's so far off it still can't be added with the >> percentage that works across the board for EVER

Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS and zfs

But what is the recommended way to share a directory? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS and zfs

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Louis Hoefler wrote: > But what is the recommended way to share a directory? > -- > I don't know that there currently is a good way to just share a directory with the built-in cifs server. I'd imagine your best bet would be to use SAMBA. --Tim _

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

I ran into a bad label causing this once. Usually the s2 slice is a good bet for your whole disk device, but if it's EFI labeled, you need to use p0 (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I like to zero the first few megs of a drive before doing any of this stuff. This will destroy any data. Ob

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aggregate Pool I/O

Peter Tribble wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Thomas Garner wrote: >> Are you looking for something like: >> >> kstat -c disk sd::: >> >> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the documentation for >> the above should be at: >> >> http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/zfs-cry

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Yes, I agree, command interface is more efficient and more risky than GUI. You will have to be very careful when doing that. Best, z - Original Message - From: "Al Tobey" To: Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small

Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS and zfs

Ok I found the share folder gnome gui. Its in coffecup->administration->shared folders. But, if I add a folder with this gui, it does not show up on windows. I tried svcadm restart smb/server but nothing happened. The gui created a /etc/sfw/smb.conf file, which holds the folder I added. I foun

Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS and zfs

Louis Hoefler wrote: > But what is the recommended way to share a directory? You should be able to use sharemgr directly to just share a directory and not an entire file system. If you do that you shouldn't set the sharesmb property, though. Use either the sharesmb property or use sharemgr di

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS tale of woe and fail

Tim wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Tom Bird wrote: > Those are supposedly the two inodes that are corrupt. The 0x0 is a bit > scary... you should be able to find out what file(s) they're tied to (if > any) with: > > find /content -inum 0 > find /content -inum 182424 Using find to s

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

comment at the bottom... Tim wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Eric D. Mudama > mailto:edmud...@bounceswoosh.org>> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18 at 13:43, Tim wrote: > > You look at the size of the drive and you take a set percentage > off... If > it's a "LUN"

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS tale of woe and fail

Tim wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Tom Bird > wrote: > errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files: > >content:<0x0> >content:<0x2c898> > > r...@cs4:~# find /content > /content > r...@cs4:~# (ye

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aggregate Pool I/O

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > Peter Tribble wrote: >> See fsstat, which is based upon kstats. One of the thing I want to do with >> JKstat is correlate filesystem operations with underlying disk operations. >> The >> hard part is actually connecting a filesystem to the u

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > comment at the bottom... > DIY. Personally, I'd be more upset if ZFS reserved any sectors > for "some potential swap I might want to do later, but may never > need to do." If you want to reserve some space for swappage, DIY. > > As others

Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS and zfs

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Louis Hoefler wrote: > Ok I found the share folder gnome gui. Its in > coffecup->administration->shared folders. But, if I add a folder with this > gui, it does not show up on windows. > > I tried > > svcadm restart smb/server > > but nothing happened. The gui crea

Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS and zfs

Ok I found a solution. Thanks for your help. svcadm enable samba wins swat modified /etc/sfw/smb.conf: [global] server string = Unix-Windows share security = SHARE wins server = 192.168.1.2, 192.168.1.1 [apache22] comment = Apache 2.2 share path = /var/apa

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

Obama just made a good speech. I hope you were watching TV... Best, z ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:17:52 -0500 JZ wrote: > Obama just made a good speech. > I hope you were watching TV... JZ, Once more you are using a technical and highly focused mailing list to ramble on about things which are totally irrelevant to the charter of the list. All that your "contribution

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

Yes, James, I will desist, if you insist. Not a big deal. Best, z - Original Message - From: "James C. McPherson" To: "JZ" Cc: "ZFS Discussions" Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject) > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:17:52 -0500 > JZ wrote: > >> O

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

/cheers! Sent from my BlackBerry Bold® http://www.blackberrybold.com -Original Message- From: "James C. McPherson" Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:31:30 To: JZ Cc: ZFS Discussions Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject) On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:17:52 -0500 JZ wrote: > Obama just made a go

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Tim wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Richard Elling > wrote: > > comment at the bottom... > DIY. Personally, I'd be more upset if ZFS reserved any sectors > for "some potential swap I might want to do later, but may never > need to do." If

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > Tim wrote: > It is naive to think that different storage array vendors > would care about people trying to use another array vendors > disks in their arrays. In fact, you should get a flat, impersonal, "not supported" response. > But we ar

[zfs-discuss] Drive failure in an unmirrored pool.

http://forums.freebsd.org/archive/index.php/t-1197.html Is a fairly good writeup on this subject... The short and sweet: One disk in a non-mirrored pool dies and is replaced with a new disk... It looks like zpool scrub is able to recover from an error of this magnitude, but getting it to impo

[zfs-discuss] Understanding ZFS replication

A few questions on data replication: Assuming I've created a pool named zfspool containing two unmirrored disks and I create: zfs create zfspool/test2 zfs set copies=2 zfspool/test2 Will data copied in there be guaranteed to be replicated on both devices? Or does ZFS just try its best to sprea

Re: [zfs-discuss] Understanding ZFS replication

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Timothy Renner wrote: > A few questions on data replication: > Assuming I've created a pool named zfspool containing two unmirrored > disks and I create: > > zfs create zfspool/test2 > zfs set copies=2 zfspool/test2 > > Will data copied in there be guaranteed to be

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS tale of woe and fail

Hey, Tom - Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems you are not allowing ZFS any sort of redundancy to manage. I'm not sure how you can class it a ZFS fail when the Disk subsystem has failed... Or - did I miss something? :) Nathan. Tom Bird wrote: > Morning, > > For those of you who remem

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aggregate Pool I/O

Richard Elling wrote: ... > Carson Gaspar wrote: > > Except sar sucks. It's scheduled via cron, and is too coarse grained for > > many purposes (10 minute long samples average out almost everything > > interesting). > > There is a world of difference between the tools needed to perform > debugg

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18 at 15:00, Tim wrote: > If you're so concerned with the storage *lying* or *hiding* space, I > assume you're leading the charge at Sun to properly advertise drive sizes, > right? Because the 1TB drive I can buy from Sun today is in no way, > shape, or form able to store 1TB o

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

Hi Folks, Sorry if this is again not relevant to the list discussion. Maybe I am too sensitive, maybe I am just crazy. But things I see around me today just make me wonder if I should do one more post. [and again, I will leave the conclusion to the mail server] I live in the U.S. My family

Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject)

Thank you Lord, for the sunny day today! 安！ z方天化戟 [read the three-kingdoms story and you will understand] - Original Message - From: "JZ" To: "Toby Thain" ; Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] (no subject) > Hi Folks, > > Sorry if this is again

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS tale of woe and fail

On 18-Jan-09, at 6:12 PM, Nathan Kroenert wrote: > Hey, Tom - > > Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems you are not allowing ZFS > any > sort of redundancy to manage. Which is particularly catastrophic when one's 'content' is organized as a monolithic file, as it is here - unless, of co

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aggregate Pool I/O

Carson Gaspar wrote: > Richard Elling wrote: > ... > >> Carson Gaspar wrote: >> > Except sar sucks. It's scheduled via cron, and is too coarse grained for >> > many purposes (10 minute long samples average out almost everything >> > interesting). >> >> There is a world of difference between t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Drive failure in an unmirrored pool.

Timothy Renner wrote: > http://forums.freebsd.org/archive/index.php/t-1197.html > > Is a fairly good writeup on this subject... The short and sweet: One > disk in a non-mirrored pool dies and is replaced with a new disk... > Actually, the demo shows how you can corrupt a portion of the data

Re: [zfs-discuss] Understanding ZFS replication

Tim wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Timothy Renner > mailto:timothy.ren...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > A few questions on data replication: > Assuming I've created a pool named zfspool containing two unmirrored > disks and I create: > > zfs create zfspool/test2 > zfs set c

Re: [zfs-discuss] Understanding ZFS replication

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > This is not quite correct. ZFS will attempt to place the copies on > different vdevs. On the same vdev, it will try to place it somewhere > which is not contiguous (spatial diversity). I'm curious where you > got the information to the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Understanding ZFS replication

and that's why I hated blogs! do you know what to read that is not misleading, in a sea of blogs and you are wondering why western folks don't like us?! > 言语之中引出的生死恩怨太多了 Best, z - Original Message - From: Tim To: Richard Elling Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] Understanding ZFS replication

Beloved Tim, You challenged me a while ago, as a friend. I did what you asked me to do, in the honor of my father. Best, z - Original Message - From: JZ To: Tim Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Understandin

Re: [zfs-discuss] Understanding ZFS replication

On 18-Jan-09, at 11:56 PM, Tim wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Richard Elling wrote: This is not quite correct. ZFS will attempt to place the copies on different vdevs. On the same vdev, it will try to place it somewhere which is not contiguous (spatial diversity). I'm curiou

Re: [zfs-discuss] Understanding ZFS replication

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Tim wrote: > Honestly, I believe this list... when other people have asked if they can > use the copies= to avoid mirroring everything. I can't say I've saved any > of the threads because they didn't seem of any particular importance to me > at the time. The extra copies hel

Re: [zfs-discuss] Understanding ZFS replication

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Tim wrote: > >> Honestly, I believe this list... when other people have asked if they can >> use the copies= to avoid mirroring everything. I can't say I've saved any >> of the threads because they didn't seem of any particular importance to me >> at