Re: [zfs-discuss] What are the rollback tools?

2009-07-19 Thread Ross
I don't know the details Brian, so I was waiting to see if anybody remembered more, but that doesn't seem to be the case. There is a way to roll back pools, Victor has been very helpful to several people, and in one of the threads where he managed to recover the pool, he posted a writeup of the

Re: [zfs-discuss] What are the rollback tools?

2009-07-19 Thread Ian Collins
Thomas Burgess wrote: On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brian Wilson > wrote: It's clear from some threads on this list that it IS possible to roll back a zpool to a previous state, and I seem to even remember reading someone was working on a tool or

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Andre van Eyssen
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Richard Elling wrote: I do, even though I have a small business. Neither InDesign nor Illustrator will be ported to Linux or OpenSolaris in my lifetime... besides, iTunes rocks and it is the best iPhone developer's environment on the planet. Richard, I think the point

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Richard Elling
Gavin Maltby wrote: Hi, David Magda wrote: On Jul 19, 2009, at 20:13, Gavin Maltby wrote: No, ECC memory is a must too. ZFS checksumming verifies and corrects data read back from a disk, but once it is read from disk it is stashed in memory for your application to use - without ECC you ero

Re: [zfs-discuss] What are the rollback tools?

2009-07-19 Thread Thomas Burgess
i'm pretty sure you're just looking for the zfs rollback command. a quick google brings up a lot of information and also man zfs check out this page http://docs.huihoo.com/opensolaris/solaris-zfs-administration-guide/html/ch06.html On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brian Wilson wrote: > It's cl

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Gavin Maltby
Hi, David Magda wrote: On Jul 19, 2009, at 20:13, Gavin Maltby wrote: No, ECC memory is a must too. ZFS checksumming verifies and corrects data read back from a disk, but once it is read from disk it is stashed in memory for your application to use - without ECC you erode confidence that wh

Re: [zfs-discuss] triple-parity: RAID-Z3

2009-07-19 Thread Craig Cory
In response to: >> I don't see much similarity between mirroring and raidz other than >> that they both support redundancy. Martin wrote: > A single parity device against a single data device is, in essence, mirroring. > For all intents and purposes, raid and mirroring with this configuration are

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Zpool lazy mirror ?

2009-07-19 Thread Dennis Clarke
self replies are so degrading ( pun intended ) I see this patch : Document Audience: PUBLIC Document ID:139555-08 Title: SunOS 5.10: Kernel Patch Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved Update Date:Fri Jul 10 04:29:40 MDT 2009 I have a

[zfs-discuss] ZFS Zpool lazy mirror ?

2009-07-19 Thread Dennis Clarke
Pardon me but I had to change subject lines just to get out of that other thread. In that other thread .. you were saying : >> dick hoogendijk uttered: >> true. Furthermore, much so-called consumer hardware is very good these >> days. My guess is ZFS should work quite reliably on that hardware.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, David Magda wrote: Right, because once (say) Apple incorporates ZFS into Mac OS X they'll also start shipping MacBooks and iMacs with ECC. If it's so necessary we might as well have any kernel that has ZFS in it only allow 'zpool create' to be run if the kernel detects EC

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread David Magda
On Jul 19, 2009, at 20:13, Gavin Maltby wrote: No, ECC memory is a must too. ZFS checksumming verifies and corrects data read back from a disk, but once it is read from disk it is stashed in memory for your application to use - without ECC you erode confidence that what you read from memor

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Gavin Maltby
dick hoogendijk wrote: true. Furthermore, much so-called consumer hardware is very good these days. My guess is ZFS should work quite reliably on that hardware. (i.e. non ECC memory should work fine!) / mirroring is a -must- ! No, ECC memory is a must too. ZFS checksumming verifies and correc

Re: [zfs-discuss] triple-parity: RAID-Z3

2009-07-19 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Martin wrote: I don't see much similarity between mirroring and raidz other than that they both support redundancy. A single parity device against a single data device is, in essence, mirroring. For all intents and purposes, raid and mirroring with this configuration ar

Re: [zfs-discuss] triple-parity: RAID-Z3

2009-07-19 Thread Martin
> I don't see much similarity between mirroring and raidz other than > that they both support redundancy. A single parity device against a single data device is, in essence, mirroring. For all intents and purposes, raid and mirroring with this configuration are one and the same. > A RAID syste

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Miles Nordin wrote: "r" == Ross writes: "tt" == Toby Thain writes: r> ZFS was never designed to run on consumer hardware, this is markedroid garbage, as well as post-facto apologetics. Don't lower the bar. Don't blame the victim. I think that the standard discl

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Richard Elling
Frank Middleton wrote: On 07/19/09 05:00 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote: (i.e. non ECC memory should work fine!) / mirroring is a -must- ! Yes, mirroring is a must, although it doesn't help much if you have memory errors (see several other threads on this topic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyna

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Miles Nordin
> "r" == Ross writes: > "tt" == Toby Thain writes: r> ZFS was never designed to run on consumer hardware, this is markedroid garbage, as well as post-facto apologetics. Don't lower the bar. Don't blame the victim. tt> I posted about that insane default, six months ago. Obvi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Frank Middleton wrote: Yes, mirroring is a must, although it doesn't help much if you have memory errors (see several other threads on this topic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory#Errors_and_error_correction "Tests[ecc]give widely varying error rat

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Frank Middleton
On 07/19/09 05:00 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote: (i.e. non ECC memory should work fine!) / mirroring is a -must- ! Yes, mirroring is a must, although it doesn't help much if you have memory errors (see several other threads on this topic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Ross
That's only one element of it Bob. ZFS also needs devices to fail quickly and in a predictable manner. A consumer grade hard disk could lock up your entire pool as it fails. The kit Sun supply is more likely to fail in a manner ZFS can cope with. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Toby Thain
On 19-Jul-09, at 7:12 AM, Russel wrote: Guys guys please chill... First thanks to the info about virtualbox option to bypass the cache (I don't suppose you can give me a reference for that info? (I'll search the VB site :-)) I posted about that insane default, six months ago. Obviously ZFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Ross wrote: The success of any ZFS implementation is *very* dependent on the hardware you choose to run it on. To clarify: "The success of any filesystem implementation is *very* dependent on the hardware you choose to run it on." ZFS requires that the hardware cache s

[zfs-discuss] What are the rollback tools?

2009-07-19 Thread Brian Wilson
It's clear from some threads on this list that it IS possible to roll back a zpool to a previous state, and I seem to even remember reading someone was working on a tool or tools in that direction. Is that correct, is it possible to manually roll back a zpool for crash recovery purposes, if yo

Re: [zfs-discuss] triple-parity: RAID-Z3

2009-07-19 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Martin wrote: In fact, get rid of mirroring, because it clearly is a variant of raidz with two devices. Want three way mirroring? Call that raidz2 I don't see much similarity between mirroring and raidz other than that they both support redundancy. Let's not stop ther

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Ross
Heh, yes, I assumed similar things Russel. I also assumed that a faulty disk in a raid-z set wouldn't hang my entire pool indefinitely, that hot plugging a drive wouldn't reboot Solaris, and that my pool would continue working after I disconnected one half of an iscsi mirror. I also like yours

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Ross
>From the experience myself and others have had, and Sun's approach with their >Amber Road storage (FISHWORKS - fully integrated *hardware* and software), my >feeling is very much that ZFS was designed by Sun to run on Sun's own >hardware, and as such, they were able to make certain assumptions

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Russel
Guys guys please chill... First thanks to the info about virtualbox option to bypass the cache (I don't suppose you can give me a reference for that info? (I'll search the VB site :-)) As this was not clear to me. I use VB like others use vmware etc to run solaris because its the ONLY way I can, a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread dick hoogendijk
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:48:40 PDT Ross wrote: > As far as I can see, the ZFS Administrator Guide is sorely lacking in > any warning that you are risking data loss if you run on consumer > grade hardware. And yet, ZFS is not only for NON-consumer grade hardware is it? the fact that many, many peop

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Ross
While I agree with Brent, I think this is something that should be stressed in the ZFS documentation. Those of us with long term experience of ZFS know that it's really designed to work with hardware meeting quite specific requirements. Unfortunately, that isn't documented anywhere, and more an

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread dick hoogendijk
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:00:06 -0700 Brent Jones wrote: > No offense, but you trusted 10TB of important data, running in > OpenSolaris from inside Virtualbox (not stable) on top of Windows XP > (arguably not stable, especially for production) on probably consumer > grade hardware with unknown suppo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Markus Kovero
I would be intrested in how to roll-back to certain txg-points in case of disaster, that was what Russel was after anyway. Yours Markus Kovero -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Miles Nordin Sent: 19. he

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Miles Nordin
> "bj" == Brent Jones writes: bj> many levels of fail here, pft. Virtualbox isn't unstable in any of my experience. It doesn't by default pass cache flushes from guest to host unless you set VBoxManage setextradata VMNAME "VBoxInternal/Devices/piix3ide/0/LUN#[x]/Config/IgnoreFlush" 0

Re: [zfs-discuss] The zfs performance decrease when enable the MPxIO round-robin

2009-07-19 Thread Mattias Pantzare
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 08:25, lf yang wrote: > Hi Guys > I have a SunFire X4200M2 and the Xyratex RS1600 JBOD which I try to > run the ZFS on it.But I found a problem: > I set mpxio-disable="yes" in the /kernel/drv/fp.conf to enable the MPxIO, I assume you mean mpxio-disable="no" > and set load

Re: [zfs-discuss] The zfs performance decrease when enable the MPxIO round-robin

2009-07-19 Thread James C. McPherson
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Dennis Clarke wrote: > > > > > To enable mpxio, you need to have > > > > mpxio-disable="no"; > > > > in your fp.conf file. You should run /usr/sbin/stmsboot -e to make > > this happen. If you *must* edit that file by hand, always run > > /usr/sbin/stmsboo

Re: [zfs-discuss] The zfs performance decrease when enable the MPxIO round-robin

2009-07-19 Thread Dennis Clarke
> > To enable mpxio, you need to have > > mpxio-disable="no"; > > in your fp.conf file. You should run /usr/sbin/stmsboot -e to make > this happen. If you *must* edit that file by hand, always run > /usr/sbin/stmsboot -u afterwards to ensure that your system's MPxIO > config is correctly updated.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work

2009-07-19 Thread Brent Jones
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Russel wrote: > Yes you'll find my name all over VB at the moment, but I have found it to be > stable > (don't install the addons disk for solaris!!, use 3.0.2, and for me > winXP32bit and > OpenSolaris 2009.6 has been rock solid, it was (seems) to be opensolaris