Just for clarity 90% of my stuff is media mostly AVI's or MKV's so I dont think
that compresses very well.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/
Ok so this is my solution, pls be advised I am a total linux nube so I am
learning as I go along. I installed opensolaris and setup rpool as my base
install on a single 1TB drive. I attached one of my NTFS drives to the system
then used a utility called prtparts to get the name of the NTFS drive
Adding additional data protection options are commendable. On the
other hand I feel there are important gaps in the existing feature
set that are worthy of a higher priority, not the least of which is
the automatic recovery of uberblock / transaction group problems (see
Victor Latushkin's
Do you have any older benchmarks on these cards and arrays (in their pre-ZFS
life?) Perhaps this is not a ZFS regression but a hardware config issue?
Perhaps there's some caching (like per-disk write-through) not enabled on the
arrays? As you may know, the ability (and reliability) of such cache
True, correction accepted, covering my head with ashes in shame ;)
We do use a custom-built package of rsync-3.0.5 with a number of their standard
contributed patches applied. To be specific, these:
checksum-reading.diff
checksum-updating.diff
detect-renamed.diff
downdate.diff
fileflags.diff
fs
By the way, if you try my idea and both disks remain physically attached, both
should be found and the mirror will be "intact", regardless of which disk you
boot from. If one is physically disconnected, then you will have complaints
about the missing disk, but it should still work if everything
Just trying to help since no one has responded
Have you tried importing with an alternate root? We don't know your setup,
such as other pools, types of controllers and/or disks, or how your pool was
constructed.
Try importing something like this:
zpool import -R /tank2 -f pool_numeric_ide
Did you run installgrub on both disks:
/usr/sbin/installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/cxtydzs0
Or the equivalent. If you can't boot from either, how did either become your
boot disk?
If you want to use a single mirror member disk to boot from (i.e. for
testing), I wouldn
Hi,
I have mirrored boot disk and I am able to boot from either disk. If I
detach mirror would I be able to boot from detached disk?
Thanks.
Sunil
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/z
Haudy Kazemi wrote:
Daniel Carosone wrote:
Sorry, don't have a thread reference
to hand just now.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=100296
Note that there's little empirical evidence that this is directly applicable to
the kinds of errors (single bit, or otherwise) th
> Thankyou! Am I right in thinking that rpool
> snapshots will include things like swap? If so, is
> there some way to exclude them?
Hi Carl :)
You can't exclude them from the send -R with something like --exclude, but you
can make sure there are no such snapshots (which aren't useful anyway)
Daniel Carosone wrote:
Sorry, don't have a thread reference
to hand just now.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=100296
Note that there's little empirical evidence that this is directly applicable to
the kinds of errors (single bit, or otherwise) that a single failing d
On 07/08/09 15:57, Carl Brewer wrote:
Thankyou! Am I right in thinking that rpool snapshots will include things like
swap? If so, is there some way to exclude them? Much like rsync has --exclude?
By default, the "zfs send -R" will send all the snapshots, including
swap and dump. But you
Carl Brewer wrote:
Thankyou! Am I right in thinking that rpool snapshots will include things like
swap? If so, is there some way to exclude them? Much like rsync has --exclude?
No. Snapshots are a feature of the dataset, not the pool. So you
would have separate snapshot policies for eac
Thankyou! Am I right in thinking that rpool snapshots will include things like
swap? If so, is there some way to exclude them? Much like rsync has --exclude?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensol
Hi
for sparc
119534-15
124630-26
for x86
119535-15
124631-27
higher rev's of these will also suffice.
Note these need to be applied to the miniroot of the jumpstart image so
that it can then install zfs flash archive.
please read the README notes in these for more specific instructions,
inc
Bob,
Patches that allow the creation and installation of a flash archive on a
zpool are available:
For SPARC:
119534-15 : fixes to the /usr/sbin/flarcreate and /usr/sbin/flar command
124630-26: updates to the install software
For x86:
119535-15 : fixes to the /usr/sbin/flarcreate and /usr/sbi
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Fredrich Maney wrote:
Any idea what the Patch ID was?
x86:119535-15
SPARC: 119534
Description of change "6690473 request to have flash support for ZFS
root install".
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
G
On 07/08/09 13:43, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Jerry K wrote:
It has been a while since this has been discussed, and I am hoping
that you can provide an update, or time estimate. As we are several
months into Update 7, is there any chance of an Update 7 patch, or
are we still
Any idea what the Patch ID was?
fpsm
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Bob
Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Jerry K wrote:
>
>> It has been a while since this has been discussed, and I am hoping that
>> you can provide an update, or time estimate. As we are several months into
>> Update 7,
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Jerry K wrote:
It has been a while since this has been discussed, and I am hoping that you
can provide an update, or time estimate. As we are several months into
Update 7, is there any chance of an Update 7 patch, or are we still waiting
for Update 8.
I saw that a Solari
Hello Lori,
It has been a while since this has been discussed, and I am hoping that
you can provide an update, or time estimate. As we are several months
into Update 7, is there any chance of an Update 7 patch, or are we still
waiting for Update 8.
Also, can you share the CR # that you ment
Thanks Cindy and Darren
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> "pe" == Peter Eriksson writes:
pe> With c1t15d0s0 added as log it takes 1:04.2, but with the same
pe> c1t15d0s0 added, but wrapped inside a SVM metadevice the same
pe> operation takes 10.4 seconds...
so now SVM discards cache flushes, too? great.
pgpFnpp1mdyTO.pgp
Descriptio
> I was all ready to write about my frustrations with
> this problem, but I upgraded to snv_117 last night to
> fix some iscsi bugs and now it seems that the write
> throttling is working as described in that blog.
I may have been a little premature. While everything is much improved for Samba
an
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Moore, Joe wrote:
The copies code is nice because it tries to put each copy "far away"
from the others. This does have a significant performance impact when
on a single spindle, however, because each logical write will be written
"here" and then a disk seek to write it to
> This causes me to believe that the algorithm is not
> implemented as described in Solaris 10.
I was all ready to write about my frustrations with this problem, but I
upgraded to snv_117 last night to fix some iscsi bugs and now it seems that the
write throttling is working as described in tha
Christian Auby wrote:
> It's not quite like copies as it's not actually a copy of the data I'm
> talking about. 10% parity or even 5% could easily fix most disk errors
> that won't result in a total disk loss.
(snip)
> I don't see a performance issue if it's not enabled by default though.
The co
Hi Shawn,
I have no experience with this configuration, but you might review
the information in this blog:
http://blogs.sun.com/erickustarz/entry/poor_man_s_cluster_end
ZFS is not a cluster file system and yes, possible data corruption
issues exist. Eric mentions this in his blog.
You might al
(in the spirit of open source, directed back to the list)
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:51:55 + (GMT), Stephen C. Bond
wrote:
>Kees,
>
> can you provide an example of how to read from dd
> cylinder by cylinder or even better by exact coordinates?
That's hard to do, many disks don't tell you the re
Shawn Joy wrote:
Is it supported to use zpool export and zpool import to manage disk access between two nodes that have access to the same storage device.
What issues exist if the host currently owning the zpool goes down? In this case will using zpool import -f work? Is there possible data corr
Is it supported to use zpool export and zpool import to manage disk access
between two nodes that have access to the same storage device.
What issues exist if the host currently owning the zpool goes down? In this
case will using zpool import -f work? Is there possible data corruption issues?
stephen bond wrote:
can you provide an example of how to read from dd cylinder by cylinder?
What's a cylinder? That's a meaningless term these days. You dd byte ranges.
Pick whatever byte range you want. If you want mythical cylinders, fetch the
cylinder size from "format" and use that as yo
On Wed, July 8, 2009 11:55, Jim Klimov wrote:
> My typical runs between Unix hosts look like:
>
> solaris# cd /pool/dumpstore/databases
> solaris# while ! rsync -vaP --stats --exclude='*.bak' --exclude='temp'
> --partial --append source:/DUMP/snapshots/mysql . ; do sleep 5; echo
> "= `date`:
I meant to add that due to the sheer amount of data (and time needed) to copy,
you really don't want to use copying tools which abort on error, such as MS
Explorer.
Normally I'd suggest something like FAR in Windows or Midnight Commander in Unix
to copy over networked connections (CIFS shares), o
Guys,
Have an opensolairs x86 box running:
SunOS thsudfile01 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
This has 2 old qla2200 1Gbit FC cards attached. Each bus is connected to an old
transtec F/C raid array. This has a couple of large luns that form a single
large zpool:
r...@thsudfile01:~# zpoo
Kees,
can you provide an example of how to read from dd cylinder by cylinder?
also if a file is fragmented is there a marker at the end of the first piece
telling where is the second?
Thank you
stephen
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Carl Brewer wrote:
G'day,
I'm putting together a LAN server with a couple of terabyte HDDs as a mirror
(zfs root) on b117 (updated 2009.06).
I want to back up snapshots of all of rpool to a removable drive on a USB port -
simple & cheap backup media for a two week rolling DR solution - ie: onc
First of all, as other posters stressed, your data is not safe by being stored
in a
single copy, in the first place. Before doing anything to it, make a backup and
test the backup if anyhow possible. At least, do it to any data that is more
worth
than the rest of it ;)
As it was stressed in oth
G'day,
I'm putting together a LAN server with a couple of terabyte HDDs as a mirror
(zfs root) on b117 (updated 2009.06).
I want to back up snapshots of all of rpool to a removable drive on a USB port
- simple & cheap backup media for a two week rolling DR solution - ie: once a
week a HDD gets
Hi Miles and All,
this is off-topic, but as the discussion has started here:
Finally, *ALL THIS IS COMPLETELY USELESS FOR NFS* because L4 hashing
can only split up separate TCP flows.
The reason why I have spend some time with
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6817942
erik.ableson writes:
> Comments in line.
>
> On 7 juil. 09, at 19:36, Dai Ngo wrote:
>
> > Without any tuning, the default TCP window size and send buffer size
> > for NFS
> > connections is around 48KB which is not very optimal for bulk
> > transfer. However
> > the 1.4MB/s write
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:41:12AM +0100, Andrew Robert Nicols wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:31:54PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> > Andrew Robert Nicols wrote:
> >
> >> The thumper unning 112 has continued to experience the issues described by
> >> Ian and others. I've just upgraded to 117 and
On 08.07.09 12:30, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Karl Dalen wrote:
I'm a new user of ZFS and I have an external USB drive which contains
a ZFS pool with file system. It seems that it does not get auto mounted
when I plug in the drive. I'm running osol-0811.
How can I manually mount this drive? It has
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:31:54PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> Andrew Robert Nicols wrote:
>
>> The thumper unning 112 has continued to experience the issues described by
>> Ian and others. I've just upgraded to 117 and am having even more issues -
>> I'm unable to receive or roll back snapshots, i
Andrew Robert Nicols wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:43:17AM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
Brent Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
I was doing an incremental send between pools, the rec
Karl Dalen wrote:
I'm a new user of ZFS and I have an external USB drive which contains
a ZFS pool with file system. It seems that it does not get auto mounted
when I plug in the drive. I'm running osol-0811.
How can I manually mount this drive? It has a pool named rpool on it.
Is there any diag
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:43:17AM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Brent Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>
Ian Collins wrote:
> I was doing an incremental send between pools, the receive side is
> locked up and no zfs/z
Comments in line.
On 7 juil. 09, at 19:36, Dai Ngo wrote:
Without any tuning, the default TCP window size and send buffer size
for NFS
connections is around 48KB which is not very optimal for bulk
transfer. However
the 1.4MB/s write seems to indicate something else is seriously wrong.
My
Oh, and for completeness: If I wrap 'c1t12d0s0' inside a SVM metadevice to and
use that to create the "TEST" zpool (without a log) I run the same test command
in 36.3 seconds... Ie:
# metadb -f -a -c3 c1t13d0s0
# metainit d0 1 1 c1t13d0s0
# metainit d2 1 1 c1t12d0s0
# zpool create TEST /dev/md/d
You might wanna try one thing I just noticed - wrap the log device inside a SVM
(disksuite) metadevice - makes wonders for the performance on my test server
(Sun Fire X4240)... I do wonder what the downsides might be (except for having
to fiddle with Disksuite again). Ie:
# zpool create TEST c1
51 matches
Mail list logo
