Hi,
That's probably true. zil_itx_cleanup may have to move a lot of entries to
another list to free up. It looks your test is related to below bugs. But I
think they should have been fixed. Can you check your version of
solaris/opensolaris to see whether these patch has been included.
http://bug
On a -single- drive, what is the best filesystem to use: zfs, ntfs or
good old fat32
I've a 500G sata drive lying around which I can (samba) share from a
server (but then ntfs can not be used) or just format is with either
ntfs or fat32 and attach it with usb2 when needed. I'm in doubt.. I've
r
Hi,
This depends on what you are looking for. Generaly zfs will be more
secure due to checksum feature. Having seen a lot of ntfs / fat drives
going south die to bad sectors i'd not clasify them very secure.
However ntfs and fat can be used nearly on every os.
And also you shouldnt forget
Hi,
I have a USB drive with ZFS.
I bought this week a new SSD to test the slog.
I add the SSD as log for the external USB.
after a while I wanted to use the SSD as a system disk, so I exported the
external HD pool: zpool export HD.
I installed a new opensolaris on the SSD and tried to import the
Op 27-2-2010 13:15, Mertol Ozyoney schreef:
This depends on what you are looking for. Generaly zfs will be more
secure due to checksum feature. Having seen a lot of ntfs / fat drives
going south die to bad sectors i'd not clasify them very secure.
However ntfs and fat can be used nearly on ever
Did you try adding:
nfs4: mode = special
vfs objects = zfsacl
To the shares in smb.conf? While we haven't done extensive work on
S10, it appears to work well enough for our (limited) purposes (along
with setting the acl properties to passthrough on the fs).
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at
Hi,
I have a USB drive with ZFS.
I bought this week a new SSD to test the slog.
I add the SSD as log for the external USB.
after a while I wanted to use the SSD as a system disk, so I exported the
external HD pool: zpool export HD.
I installed a new opensolaris on the SSD and tried to import the
I want zfs on a single drive so I use copies=2 for -some- extra safety.
But I wonder if dedup=on could mean something in this case too? That way
the same blocks would never be written more than twice. Or would that
harm the reliability of the drive and should I just use copies=2?
--
Dick Hooge
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> I want zfs on a single drive so I use copies=2 for -some- extra safety. But
> I wonder if dedup=on could mean something in this case too? That way the
> same blocks would never be written more than twice. Or would that harm the
> reliabil
Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
Op
27-2-2010 13:15, Mertol Ozyoney schreef:
This depends on what you are looking for.
Generaly zfs will be more secure due to checksum feature. Having seen a
lot of ntfs / fat drives going south die to bad sectors i'd not clasify
them very secure. However ntfs and fa
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> I think of using ACLs to extend extra access beyond what the permission
> bits grant. Are you talking about using them to prevent things that the
> permission bits appear to grant? Because so long as they're only
> granting extended access, losing
I have implemented a virtual block device in Linux that transparently
compresses and decompresses data. In my implementation, the unit of compression
is 4K. Multiple variable-size compressed blocks are stored in the same physical
block, which in principle requires a read-modify-write sequence.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:25:57PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
...
> I agree with the above, but the best practices guide:
>
> http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#ZFS_file_service_for_SMB_.28CIFS.29_or_SAMBA
>
> states in the SAMBA section that "Beware that mo
Hi,
It seems I can't import a single external HDD.
pool: HD
id: 8012429942861870778
state: UNAVAIL
status: One or more devices are missing from the system.
action: The pool cannot be imported. Attach the missing
devices and try again.
see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-6X
config
On Feb 27, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Thanos Makatos wrote:
> I have implemented a virtual block device in Linux that transparently
> compresses and decompresses data. In my implementation, the unit of
> compression is 4K. Multiple variable-size compressed blocks are stored in the
> same physical block
I was running zpool iostat on a pool comprising a stripe of raidz2 vdevs
that appears to be writing slowly and I notice a considerable imbalance
of both free space and write operations. The pool is currently feeding
a tape backup while receiving a large filesystem.
Is this imbalance normal?
16 matches
Mail list logo
