I'm running FreeBSD 8.1 with ZFS v15. Recently some time after moving my
mirrored pool from one device to another system crashes. From that time on
zpool cannot be used/imported - any attempt fails with:
solaris assert: sm-space + size lt;= sm-size, file:
On 07/23/2010 02:39 AM, tomwaters wrote:
Re the CPU, do not go low power Atom etc, go a newish
Core2 duo...the power differential at idle is bugger all
and when you want to use the nas, ZFS will make good use
of the CPU.
Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD
On Jul 24, 2010, at 01:20, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
I think it should go like what NetApp's snapshot does.
There was a long thread on this topic earlier this year. Please
see the
archives for details.
Do you have the URL? I don't have a long subscription
I too do not have a long
Had a weird one yesterday, so am looking for some insight... At the very
least, a deeper understanding of this will contribute to our administration
skills!
Have a sun4u server with one zpool under which we've created a number of zfses.
Something like:
/pool/zfs1
.../zfs2
.../zfs3
I remember asking about this a long time ago, and everybody seemed to think
it was a non-issue. The vague and unclearly reported rumor that ZFS behaves
poorly when it's 100% full. Well now I have one really solid data point to
confirm it. And possibly how to reproduce it, avoid it, and prevent
But if it were just the difference between 5min freeze when a drive
fails, and 1min freeze when a drive fails, I don't see that anyone
would care---both are bad enough to invoke upper-layer application
timeouts of iSCSI connections and load balancers, but not disastrous.
but it's not. ZFS
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price
Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD
quad-core is
I know a lot of CPU cycles is a relative term. But I never notice CPU
utilization, even under the
On 7/24/2010 8:12 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price
Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD
quad-core is
I know a lot of CPU cycles is a relative term. But I
On Jul 24, 2010, at 12:53 AM, Fred Liu wrote:
Disagree. The benefits are not as great as advertised.
Is it ZFS intrinsic flaw to realize it? I have lots of users who are addicted
to NetApp's snapshot so much!
The tricky part is exporting FIDs over NFS in a way that allows you to 'cd ..'
On Jul 24, 2010, at 5:37 PM, JavaWebDev wrote:
On 7/24/2010 8:12 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price
Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD
quad-core is
I
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 19:54 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com]
Fundamentally, my recommendation is to choose NFS if your clients can
use it. You'll get a lot of potential advantages in the NFS/zfs
integration, so better performance. Plus
I've been looking at using consumer 2.5 drives also, I think the ones I've
settled on are the hitachi 7K500 500 GB. These are 7200 rpm, I'm concerned the
5400's might be a little too low performance wise. The main reasons for hitachi
were performance seems to be among the top 2 or 3 in the
12 matches
Mail list logo
