[richard tries pushing the rope one more time]
On Mar 21, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
>>
>> There is no direct correlation between the number of blocks and resilver
>> time.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Although there are possibly
> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
>
> There is no direct correlation between the number of blocks and resilver
> time.
Incorrect.
Although there are possibly some cases where you could be bandwidth limited,
it's certainly not true in general.
If Richard were correct, then
On 3/21/2011 3:25 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
On Mar 21, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Richard Elling
How many times do we have to rehash this? The speed of resilver is
dependent on
On 3/21/2011 2:59 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I *hate* talking about unreleased product schedules
:).
but I think you can expect a beta with a month or two, perhaps less.
We've already got an alpha that we've handed out in limited
quantities.
Actually, I read about that alpha; one of my cow
On Mar 21, 2011, at 5:32 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>>
>> it depends on the total number of used blocks that must
>> be resilvered on the resilvering device, multiplied b
On Mar 21, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Richard Elling
>>
>> How many times do we have to rehash this? The speed of resilver is
>> dependent on the amount of data, the distribu
On 3/18/2011 6:32 PM, David Magda wrote:
Oracle has said that they "will distribute updates to approved CDDL
or other open source- licensed code following full releases of our
enterprise Solaris operating system."
http://unixconsole.blogspot.com/2010/08/internal-oracle-memo-leaked-on-solaris.ht
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 14:56 -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On 3/18/2011 3:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
> > c) NCP 4 is still 5-6 months away. We're still developing it.
>
> By the time I do some initial evaluation, then some prototyping, I don't
> anticipate migrating anything production wis
On 03/22/11 10:39 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
So the conclusion to draw is:
Yes, there are situations where ZFS resilver is a strength, and limited by
serial throughput. But for what I call "typical" usage patterns, it's a
weakness, and it's dramatically much worse than resilvering the whole d
On 3/18/2011 3:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
a) Nexenta Core Platform is a bare-bones OS. No GUI, in other words
(no X11.) It might well suit you.
Indeed :), my servers are headless (well, as headless as you can get on
x86 hardware 8-/, they do have an ipmi remote console that still needs
to
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
>
> Is resilver time related to the amount of data (TBs) or the number
> of objects (file + directory counts) ? I have seen zpools with lots of
> data in very few files resilver
> Our main backups storage server has 3x 8-drive raidz2 vdevs. Was
> replacing the 500 GB drives in one vdev with 1 TB drives. The last 2
> drives took just under 300 hours each. :( The first couple drives
> took approx 150 hours each, and then it just started taking longer and
> longer for each dr
> The 30+ second latency I see on this system during a resilver renders
> it pretty useless as a staging server (lots of small snapshots).
I've seen similar numbers on a system during resilver, without L2ARC/SLOG.
Adding L2ARC/SLOG made the system work quite well during resilver/scrub, but
witho
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> Has anyone seen a resilver longer than this for a 500G drive in a riadz2
> vdev?
>
> scrub: resilver completed after 169h25m with 0 errors on Sun Mar 20 19:57:37
> 2011
> c0t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 769G resilvered
>
> an
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> On 03/20/11 08:57 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Has anyone seen a resilver longer than this for a 500G drive in a riadz2
>>> vdev?
>>>
>>> scrub: resilver completed after 169h25m with 0 erro
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>
> it depends on the total number of used blocks that must
> be resilvered on the resilvering device, multiplied by the access time for
> the resilvering device.
It is a s
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Richard Elling
>
> How many times do we have to rehash this? The speed of resilver is
> dependent on the amount of data, the distribution of data on the
resilvering
> device, speed of the resil
Thanks.
But does noacal work with nfs v3?
Thanks.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Cameron Hanover [mailto:chano...@umich.edu]
> Sent: 星期四, 三月 17, 2011 1:34
> To: Fred Liu
> Cc: ZFS Discussions
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] GNU 'cp -p' can't work well with ZFS-based-
> NFS
>
> I thought
18 matches
Mail list logo
