Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20

Please don't feed the troll. :) -brian On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 06:32:42AM -0700, Robert Dupuy wrote: > There is a debate tactic known as complex argument, where so many false and > misleading statements are made at once, that it overwhelms the respondent. > > I'm just going to respond this way

Re: [zfs-discuss] Stupid to have 2 disk raidz?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:09:32AM -0600, Cindy Swearingen wrote: > Hi Greg, > > With two disks, I would start with a mirror. Then, you could add Additionally, with a two disk RAIDZ1 you are doing parity calculations for no good reason. I would recommend a mirror. -brian -- "Coding in C is lik

Re: [zfs-discuss] Lightning SSD with 180,000 IOPs, 320MB/s writes

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 04:35:02PM -0400, en...@businessgrade.com wrote: > > >http://www.plianttechnology.com/lightning_ls.php > > Does anyone know list prices? If you need to ask you can't afford it? :-D -brian -- "Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them

[zfs-discuss] possibilities of AFP ever making it into ZFS like NFS and CIFS did

As I sit here building netatalk (assuming it will actually build) it occurs to me that maybe AFP could be the next protocol to be merged directly into ZFS the way NFS and CIFS have been. Any thoughs/opinions on this? I think this would be a great way to get ZFS out there into OSX shops by way of

Re: [zfs-discuss] b122 and "fake checksum errors"

ere: > > http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide#RAID-Z_Checksum_Errors_in_Nevada_Builds.2C_120-123 > > Thanks, > > Cindy > > On 09/10/09 13:21, Brian Hechinger wrote: > >I've hit google and it looks like this is still an issue in b122.

[zfs-discuss] b122 and "fake checksum errors"

I've hit google and it looks like this is still an issue in b122. Does this look like it will be fixed any time soon? If so, what build will it be fixed in and is there an ETA for the build to be "released"? Thanks. -brian -- "Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Crypto Updates [PSARC/2009/443 FastTrack timeout 08/24/2009]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:37:23AM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: > Hi Darren, > > Thank you for the update. > Have you got any ETA (build number) for the crypto project? Also, is there any word on if this will support the hardware crypto stuff in the VIA CPUs natively? That would be nice. :) -

Re: [zfs-discuss] Adding a single disk to RAIDZ pool

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 05:16:27PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Thomas Burgess wrote: > > >i think you can add different types of vdevs but doesn't it make you use > >-f? > >i thought it was "not a good idea" > > I have no idea. I am not brave enough to try it with my ow

Re: [zfs-discuss] SSD's and ZFS...

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:28:38AM -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote: > > > In my case the slog slice wouldn't be the slog for the root pool, it > would be the slog for a second data pool. I didn't think you could add a slog to the root pool anyway. Or has that changed in recent builds? I'm a little

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + EMC Cx310 Array (JBOD ? Or Singe MetaLUN ?)

On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 09:52:54AM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote: > > EMC. It's where data lives. I thought it was, "EMC. It's where data goes to die." :-D -brian -- "Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard

Re: [zfs-discuss] Supermicro SAS/SATA controllers?

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 08:35:08PM +1200, Nicholas Lee wrote: > Supermicro have several LSI controllers. AOC-USASLP-L8i with the LSI 1068E > and AOC-USASLP-H8iR with the LSI 1078. > > Are they stable? How does is the performance compare to the Marvel? Does > hot swap cause problems? I've run bo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can VirtualBox run a 64 bit guests on 32 bit host

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 01:20:54AM -0600, Harry Putnam wrote: > So cutting to the chase here... would you happen to have a > recommendation from your own experience, or something you've heard > will work and that can stand more ram... my current setup tops out at > 3gb. The link to the HCL that wa

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs with PERC 6/i card?

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:59:04AM +1100, Julius Roberts wrote: > > > > However I would expect that if you could present 8 raid0 luns to > > the host then that should be at least a decent config to start > > using for ZFS. > > I can confirm that we are doing that here (with 3 drives) and it's > be

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can VirtualBox run a 64 bit guests on 32 bit host

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 07:14:14PM -0600, Harry Putnam wrote: > > My whole purpose is to experiment with zfs... would I see much > difference if opensol was installed 64 bit as compared to 32 bit? > > I noticed the Simon blogs that describe how to setup a home zfs server > ( http://breden.org.uk/

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup/Restore root pool : SPARC and x86/x64

On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:56:54AM -0800, Gordon Johnson wrote: > I hope this thread catches someone's attention. I've reviewed the root pool > recovery guide as posted. It presupposes a certain level of network support, > for backup and restore, that many opensolaris users may not have. I di

Re: [zfs-discuss] terabyte or terror-byte disk drives

> I've always felt squeamish when I had to move boxes with spinning > disks, > or when I had to watch someone else do it. Thanks for justifying my > paranoia... and good luck with the replacement drives. This reminds me of a story. Many years ago a friend of mine had to move some servers from

[zfs-discuss] Can't add mirror half back to mirror after moving controllers

In the previous config I had two RAID0 hardware stripes on an LSI1068 that were then mirrored together with ZFS. I then got a PERC 6/i card (aka LSI1078) to stick in the box and so I moved the one stripe over to that (and had to re-create the stripe of course). The problem is that once the stripe

Re: [zfs-discuss] Need help with disk layout

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:55:15PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote: > Hi Brian, > > I tried running with one 146Gb 15k SAS disk for Zil and a 2nd > (identical) disk for L2ARC and it turns out to be a "bad" use of that > hardware. "Bad" is a highly subjective assessment, based on the type > of workload you

[zfs-discuss] Need help with disk layout

I've got a server at home that I'm about to set up. I'll be moving 3x 500GB SATA disks into it from a different machine, so the config of those is set. What I need help with is the other disks. I'm not sure what the best way to use them is. I want to do ZFS Boot, so I'm limited to what config

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?

On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 10:39:45AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Ok, thanx for your input, guys. So Bvians comment still is valid. I > >tell the Linux guys that "Open Solaris on 32 bit will fragment the > >memory to the point that you have to reboot once in a while. It > >shouldnt corrupt y

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?

On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 01:36:35PM -0800, Joseph Mocker wrote: > Does PAE help things at all on 32-bit ? No. -brian -- "Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix." -- IRC

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?

On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:42:44PM -0600, Tim wrote: > "Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern" > > Sounds to me like they want to try out solaris + zfs, not "zfs on fuse". Ooops, misread what he said. Sorry about that. I suppose my original comment still stands then. :) -brian -- "Coding in C i

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?

On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 11:31:06AM -0500, Toby Thain wrote: > > > Its not me. There are people on Linux forums that wont to try out > > Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern, for them. What should I tell > > them? That it is not fixed? That they have reboot every week? > > Someone knows? > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?

On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 11:35:27AM -0800, Orvar Korvar wrote: > I see this old post about ZFS fragmenting the RAM if it is 32 bit. This makes > the memory run out. Is it still true, or has it been fixed? Don't waste your time trying to run ZFS on a 32-bit machine. The performance is horrible. I

Re: [zfs-discuss] A failed disk can bring down a machine?

On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 12:50:08PM -0600, Tim wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I believe the issue you're running into is the failmode you currently have > set. Take a look at this: > http://prefetch.net

[zfs-discuss] A failed disk can bring down a machine?

I was not in front of the machine, I had remote hands working with me, so I appologize in advance for any lack of detail I'm about to give. The server in question is running snv_81 booting ZFS Root using Tim's scripts to "convert" it over to ZFS Root. My server in colo stopped responding. I had

Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenStorage GUI

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:26:46AM -0800, Adam Leventhal wrote: > On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Brent Jones wrote: > > Wish I could get my hands on a beta of this GUI... > > Take a look at the VMware version that you can run on any machine: > >http://www.sun.com/storage/disk_systems/unified_s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Enabling load balance with zfs

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 02:18:34PM +0200, Johan Hartzenberg wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Sergio Arroutbi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > This is interesting to me! What fuse file system allows you to spread a > single directory (file system) across two disks in a non-redundant manner

Re: [zfs-discuss] sata on sparc

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:03:32PM -0700, John-Paul Drawneek wrote: > you have buy a lsi sas card. Which work *great* by the way. > not cheap - around 100 GBP Really? I picked mine up for $68US including shipping and the SAS<->SATA breakout cable. Needless to say I haven't looked at prices lat

Re: [zfs-discuss] An slog experiment (my NAS can beat up your NAS)

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 06:27:51PM -0400, Jim Dunham wrote: > > If one wants this type of mirror functionality on a single node, use > host based or controller based mirroring software. Is there mirroring software that can do async copies to a mirror? -brian -- "Coding in C is like sending a

Re: [zfs-discuss] An slog experiment (my NAS can beat up your NAS)

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:50:57AM -0400, Moore, Joe wrote: > > I've not worked with AVS other than looking at the basic concepts, but to me > this looks like a dont-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot critical warning rather > than an actual functionality restriction. Is there a -force option to > ove

Re: [zfs-discuss] An slog experiment (my NAS can beat up your NAS)

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 01:13:40AM -0700, Ross wrote: > > It's also worth bearing in mind that you can have multiple mirrors. I don't > know what effect that will have on the performance, but it's an easy way to > boost the reliability even further. I think this idea configured on a set of >

Re: [zfs-discuss] An slog experiment (my NAS can beat up your NAS)

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:47:04AM -0400, Moore, Joe wrote: > > I wonder if an AVS-replicated storage device on the backends would be > appropriate? > > write -> ZFS-mirrored slog -> ramdisk -AVS-> physical disk >\ > +-iscsi-> ramdisk -AVS-> physical disk

Re: [zfs-discuss] An slog experiment (my NAS can beat up your NAS)

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:47:04AM -0400, Moore, Joe wrote: > > I wonder if an AVS-replicated storage device on the backends would be > appropriate? > > write -> ZFS-mirrored slog -> ramdisk -AVS-> physical disk >\ > +-iscsi-> ramdisk -AVS-> physical disk

Re: [zfs-discuss] An slog experiment (my NAS can beat up your NAS)

On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 11:30:54PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > There have been threads about adding a feature to support slow mirror > devices that don't stay synced synchronously. At least IIRC. That > would help. But then, if the pool is busy writing then your slow ZIL That would defi

Re: [zfs-discuss] An slog experiment (my NAS can beat up your NAS)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 10:37:26PM -0700, Chris Greer wrote: > > So I tried this experiment this week... > On each host (OpenSolaris 2008.05), I created an 8GB ramdisk with ramdiskadm. > I shared this ramdisk on each host via the iscsi target and initiator over a > 1GB crossconnect cable (jumbo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Quantifying ZFS reliability

On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 01:03:28AM +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote: > > Hmm ... well, there is a considerable price difference, so unless someone > says I'm horribly mistaken, I now want to go back to Barracuda ES 1TB 7200 > drives. By the way, how many of those would saturate a single (non trunked) > Gi

Re: [zfs-discuss] SIL3124 stability?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 07:40:09PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > There is no option to use the card+disk in a differnt machine. That's a shame, that could tell you a lot. > I read that there might be a firmware upgrade but I have not been able to > find > a dowload. http://www.siliconimag

Re: [zfs-discuss] SIL3124 stability?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:23:42PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > THe lock I observed happened inside the BIOS of the card after the main board > BIOS jumped into the board BIOS. This was before any bootloader has been > ionvolved. I wonder if it's not nessesarily the BIOS of the card, but ra

Re: [zfs-discuss] SIL3124 stability?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:51:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Mikael Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Anyone with experience with the SIL3124 chipset? Does it work good? > > Yesterday, I tried the SIL 3114 which should be the same. It comes with > a BIOS that hangs up completely dir

Re: [zfs-discuss] EMC - top of the table for efficiency, how well would ZFS do?

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:06:16AM -0500, Tim wrote: > > The problem though for our usage with NetApp was that we actually couldn't > > reserve enough space for snapshots. 50% of the pool was their maximum, and > > we're interested in running ten years worth of snapshots here, which could > > see

Re: [zfs-discuss] CF to SATA adapters for boot device

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 05:17:45PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote: > Has anyone here had any luck using a CF to SATA adapter? > > I've just tried an Addonics ADSACFW CF to SATA adaptor with an 8GB card that > I wanted to use for a boot pool and even though the BIOS reports the disk, > Solaris B95 (or

Re: [zfs-discuss] Supermicro AOC-USAS-L8i

On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 07:53:30PM -0500, Tim wrote: > Dunno how old it is, but James is right, no Raid which is why it's cheaper. > Also why I like it ;) I have the HP badged LSA SAS3080X in my Ultra80, it's a fantastic card. If I ever get a box with PCI-E (I'm looking to upgrade the U80 soon, so

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:56:26PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > This deduplication technology seems similar to the Microsoft adds I > see on TV which advertise how their new technology saves the customer Quantum's claim of 20:1 just doesn't jive in my head, either, for some reason. -brian

Re: [zfs-discuss] iostat and monitoring

On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 03:03:34PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote: > > You can access the kstats directly to get the counter values. First off, let me say that: kstat++ That's too cool. > $ kstat -p ::vopstats_zfs:{nread,read_bytes,nwrite,write_bytes} > unix:0:vopstats_zfs:nread 418787 > unix:0:

Re: [zfs-discuss] 2 items on the wish list

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:04:58PM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote: > > Re-reading your question is occurs to me that you might be referring > to the ability to mount a snapshot on *another server* ? Yes, I believe that's what he's talking about. He's thinking the way a clustered filesystem would work

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS configuration for VMware

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 03:02:43PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: > Unfortunately, we need to be careful here with our terminology. You are completely and 100% correct, Erik. I've been throwing the term SSD around, but in the context of what I'm thinking, by SSD I mean this new-fangled flash based SS

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS configuration for VMware

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 08:32:23AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > > You will want mirrored slogs. Yes, always an excellent recommendation. > Note that there are some companies, Crucial and STEC come to mind, > sell SSDs which fit in disk form factors. IIRC, Mac Book Air and EMC > use STEC's SS

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS configuration for VMware

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:22:48AM -0700, Ross wrote: > Thanks both, very good pieces of advice there. > > Wonko, I was about to question how much difference the iRAM will actually > make with it being on a single SATA connection, but after googling, for ??70 > + RAM it's worth buying just as

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS configuration for VMware

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:58:42AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yes. two caveats though. ZFS is a COW filesystem, currently with no > defrag. Placing heavy write (vmware is) on this type of storage > (especially, but not only if you are planning on using snapshots) you will > tend to see d

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root finally here in SNV90

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:41:56PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote: > > But with ZFS, the layout is a simple matter of creating filesystems, not > slicing up drives. The filesystems are in a shared pool, so one doesn't > have to know how big a particular slice will grow. Yes, we are agreeing on that par

Re: [zfs-discuss] raid card vs zfs

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 02:50:40PM -0500, Tim wrote: > > The issue is cost. It's still cheaper for someone to buy two quad-port > gig-e cards and trunk all the interfaces than it is for them to buy a single > 10Gb card. Huh? You can get a two-port 10Gb card from Sun (without bugging your sales

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root finally here in SNV90

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:35:30PM +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > >>This is not a purely Solaris phenomenon, this is a UNIX phenomenon. > >>People who run Linux or OSX (I

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root finally here in SNV90

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:45:45PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > > I think the ability to have different policies for file systems > is pure goodness -- though you pay for it on the backup/ > restore side. That's a price I for one am willing to pay. ;) > A side question though, my friends who r

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root finally here in SNV90

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18:21AM -0600, Lori Alt wrote: > Sorry it's taken me so long to weigh in on this. You're busy with important things, we'll forgive you. ;) > With zfs, we don't actually have to put /var in its own > slice. We can achieve the same goal by putting it > in its own dataset

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool iostat

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:06:19AM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: > Hello Brian, > > BH> A three-way mirror and three disks in a double parity array are going to > get you > BH> the same usable space. They are going to get you the same level of > redundancy. > BH> The only difference is that th

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:36:53PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: > But, but, but, PAE works so nice on my Solaris 8 x86 boxes for > massive /tmp. :-) What CPU? If it's a 64-bit CPU, you don't need PAE. ;) > Back on topic: the one thing I haven't tried out is ZFS on a > 32-bit-only system w

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 03:16:45PM -0400, Brian H. Nelson wrote: > > > >Limits on physical memory for 32-bit platforms also depend on the > >Physical Address Extension > > > >(PAE), which allows 32-bit Windows systems to use more

Re: [zfs-discuss] raid card vs zfs

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:13:49AM +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The cache may give RAID cards an edge, but ZFS gives near platter speeds for > its various configurations. The Thumper is a perfect example of a ZFS > appliance. I get very acceptable performance out of my Sun Ultra-80 wit

Re: [zfs-discuss] What is this, who is doing it, and how do I get you to stop?

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 06:11:21PM +0200, Volker A. Brandt wrote: > > Everyone who post gets this autoreply. So what do the rest of you do? Ignore it? > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > These people are not spoofing your domain, they set a "From:" header > with no "@domain". Many MTAs append the

[zfs-discuss] What is this, who is doing it, and how do I get you to stop?

Every time I post to this list, I get an AUTOREPLY from somebody who if you ask me is up to no good, otherwise they would set a proper From: address instead of spoofing my domain. > Received: from mail01.csw-datensysteme.de ([62.153.225.98]) > by wiggum.4amlunch.net > (Sun Java(tm) System Messag

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS-Performance: Raid-Z vs. Raid5/6 vs. mirrored

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:37:34AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > Perhaps the solution is to install more RAM in the system so that the > stripe is fully cached and ZFS does not need to go back to disk prior > to writing an update. The need to read prior to write is clearly what > kills ZFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool iostat

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 07:37:38PM -0700, Anil Jangity wrote: > Why is it that the read operations are 0 but the read bandwidth is >0? > What is iostat > [not] accounting for? Is it the metadata reads? (Is it possible to > determine what kind of metadata > reads these are? That question I'll lea

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool with RAID-5 from intelligent storage arrays

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 02:51:31PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > I think that "none requested" likely means that the administrator has > never issued a request to scrub the pool. Or the system. That status line will show the last scrub/resilver to have taken place. "None requested" means t

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool with RAID-5 from intelligent storage arrays

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 02:19:05PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Brian Wilson wrote: > > > What are the odds, in that configuration of zpool (no mirroring, > > just using the intelligent disk as concatenated luns in the zpool) > > that if we have this silent corruption, th

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 02:40:34AM -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > the SAS drives, at a mere 7200 RPM can sustain a sequential transfer > rate about 2.5x that of the 10KRPM FC drives!). I think that't my favorite part about these new high density drives. Don't get me wrong, a TB (or more!) in

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root boot failure?

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:43:26PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > > AFAIK, SVM will not handle this problem well. ZFS and Solaris > Cluster can detect this because the configuration metadata knows > the time difference (ZFS can detect this by the latest txg). Having been through this myself with

Re: [zfs-discuss] Filesystem for each home dir - 10,000 users?

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 04:52:45PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > Mirror mounts take care of the NFS problem (with NFSv4). > > NFSv3 automounters could be made more responsive to server-side changes > is share lists, but hey, NFSv4 is the future. So basically it's just a waiting game at this

Re: [zfs-discuss] Filesystem for each home dir - 10,000 users?

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 02:58:09PM -0700, eric kustarz wrote: > > >> clients do not. Without per-filesystem mounts, 'df' on the client > >> will not report correct data though. > > > > I expect that mirror mounts will be coming Linux's way too. > > The should already have them: > http://blogs.su

Re: [zfs-discuss] Filesystem for each home dir - 10,000 users?

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:02:42PM -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote: > > - as separate filesystems, they have to be separately NFS mounted I think this is the one that gets under my skin. If there would be a way to "merge" a filesystem into a parent filesystem for the purposes of NFS, that would be

Re: [zfs-discuss] Get your SXCE on ZFS here!

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:45:09PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote: > Way to drag my post into the mud there. > > Can we just move on? Absolutely not! Just be glad you never had to create a swap file on an NFS mount just to be able to build software on your machine! Yes, I really did have to do that.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Get your SXCE on ZFS here!

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:14:46PM +1000, Nathan Kroenert wrote: > format -e is your window to cache settings. Ah ha! > As for the auto-enabling, I'm not sure, as IIRC, we do different things > based on disk technology. > > eg: IDE + SATA - Always enabled > SCSI - Disabled by default, unles

Re: [zfs-discuss] Get your SXCE on ZFS here!

On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:17:05PM -0400, Ellis, Mike wrote: > The FAQ document ( > http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/boot/zfsbootFAQ/ ) has a > jumpstart profile example: Speaking of the FAQ and mentioning the need to use slices, how does that affect the ability of Solaris/ZFS to automatica

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:01:36PM -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote: > On May 28, 2008, at 05:11, James Andrewartha wrote: > > That's not a huge price difference when building a server - thanks > for the pointer. Are there any 'gotchas' the list can offer when > using a SAS card with SATA drives?

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 05:26:34PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Fri, 23 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote: > > The remote-disk cache makes perfect sense. I'm curious if there are > > measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD > > drives have good 'seek' and slow trans

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:25:34PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: > > > >I'm running a 3124 with snv81 and haven't had a single problem with it. > >Whatever problems you ran into have likely been resolved. > > > The Silicon Image 3114 also works like a champ, but it's SATA 1.0 only. > It's dirt cheap

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:47:18AM -0700, Pascal Vandeputte wrote: > > I sold it and took the cheap route again with a Silicon Image 3124-based > adapter and had more problems which now probably would be solved with the > latest Solaris updates. I'm running a 3124 with snv81 and haven't had a s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Q: ZFS Boot Install / LU support ETA?

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:32:34PM -0600, Lori Alt wrote: > Install of a zfs root can only be done with the tty-based installer > or with Jumpstart. I will make sure that instructions for both > are made available by the time that SXDE build 90 is > released. Will the tty or jumpstart based insta

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:30:27AM +0800, Robin Guo wrote: > Hi, Paul > > At least, s10u6 will contain L2ARC cache, ZFS as root filesystem, etc.. As far as root zfs goes, are there any plans to support more than just single disks or mirrors in U6, or will that be for a later date? -brian -- "

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs 32bits

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:29:46AM -0500, Rob Logan wrote: > > ZFS is not 32-bit safe. > > while this is kinda true, if the systems has 2G or less of ram > it shouldn't be an issue other than poor performance for lack of > ARC. So what happens if you have a 32-bit machine with 4GB RAM like I do?

Re: [zfs-discuss] What is likely the best way to accomplish this task?

On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:48:05AM -0500, Rob Logan wrote: > > have 4x500G disks in a RAIDZ. I'd like to repurpose [...] as the second > > half of a mirror in a machine going into colo. > > rsync or zfs send -R the 128G to the machine going to the colo And this is what I ended up doing. So mu

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs 32bits

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 02:07:09PM +0100, Mattias Pantzare wrote: > > I don't know how to change the ARC sise, but use this to increase > kernel addres space: > > eeprom kernelbase=0x5000 Ah ha, that's what I was thinking about. > Your user address space will shrink when you do that. Yes,

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs 32bits

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 11:39:25AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I think it's specfically problematic on 32 bit systems with large amounts > of RAM. Then you run out of virtual address space in the kernel quickly; > a small amount of RAM (I have one with 512MB) works fine. I have a 32-bit

Re: [zfs-discuss] What is likely the best way to accomplish this task?

On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:48:05AM -0500, Rob Logan wrote: > > have 4x500G disks in a RAIDZ. I'd like to repurpose [...] as the second > > half of a mirror in a machine going into colo. > > rsync or zfs send -R the 128G to the machine going to the colo Yeah, that's the fallback plan, which I w

[zfs-discuss] What is likely the best way to accomplish this task?

I realize I can't remove devices from a vdev, which, well, sucks and all, but I'm not going to complain about that. ;) I have 4x500G disks in a RAIDZ. I'd like to repurpose one of them as I'm finding that all that space isn't really needed and that one disk would serve me much better elsewhere (a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sparc zfs root/boot status ?

On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:15:30PM -0700, Lori Alt wrote: > > >Does this still seem likely to occur, or will it be pushed back further? > >I see that build 81 is out today which means we are not far from seeing > >ZFS boot on Sparc in Nevada? > > > The pressure to get this into build 86 is cons

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL controls in Solaris 10 U4?

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:28:42PM -0500, Jim Mauro wrote: > > As to the putpack schedule of recent ZFS features into Solaris 10, I'm > afraid I > don't have the information. Hopefully, someone else will know... I've got a box that I'm setting up soon (now, really) and I'd love to know when the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Q : change disks to get bigger pool

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 01:51:28PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote: > > So will pool get bigger just by replasing all 4 disks one-by-one ? > > Yes, but a re-import (either by export/import or by reboot) is necessary > before the new space will be usable. Is this step really nessesary? The last time

Re: [zfs-discuss] hardware for zfs home storage

On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:10:26AM -0800, Scott Laird wrote: > I'm using smb. Mount the share via the finder, then go to the time > machine pref pane, and it should show up. I guess it's time to setup SAMBA then. :) Thanks! I've been wanting to backup the mini and the macbook to the fileser

Re: [zfs-discuss] hardware for zfs home storage

On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 09:52:38AM -0800, Scott Laird wrote: > Run 'defaults write com.apple.systempreferences > TMShowUnsupportedNetworkVolumes 1' as root. I've been using it since > November without problems, but I haven't actually had to restore > anything in anger yet. I couldn't get that to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Trying to be tricky about booting

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:36:17PM -0600, Brian Hechinger wrote: > > root (hd0,0,a) --- (the IDE disk) > kernel /platform/i86pc/kernel/unix -kv -B bootpath="/[EMAIL > PROTECTED],0/pci1095,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0" > module /platform/i86pc/boot_archive >

[zfs-discuss] Trying to be tricky about booting

I have a machine that the BIOS cannot see my SiL3124 controller. Solaris of course sees it just fine. This means that I can't boot from it however. What I've done it this. I installed Solaris onto a temporary IDE disk and ran Tim Foster's zfs-actual-root-install.sh script on it to prep the ZFS

[zfs-discuss] zfs root/boot

I'm going to be installing B77 in the next couple days. I've built a server using a SiL3124 card, but the BIOS of the machine for whatever reason doesn't get along with grub so I'm not able to actually boot from it. This isn't a huge concern, as I've orderd (and hopefully they will arrive soon) a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Seperate ZIL

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 03:27:33PM -0800, Scott Laird wrote: > > > MAX3xxxRC (where xxx represents the size) and you'll be wearing a big > > > smile every time you work on a system so equipped. > > > > Hmmm, on second glace, 36G versions of that seem to be going for $40. > > Do you mean $140, or a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Seperate ZIL

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 06:12:18PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote: > > I don't think you'll see any worthwhile improvement. For a ZIL > device, you really need something like a (small) SAS 15k RPM 3.5" > drive - which will sustain 700 to 900 IOPS (my number - open to > argument) - or a RAM disk or one

Re: [zfs-discuss] Seperate ZIL

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 06:12:18PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote: > > PS: LsiLogic just updated their SAS HBAs and have a couple of products > very reasonably priced IMHO. Combine that with a (single ?) Fujitsu > MAX3xxxRC (where xxx represents the size) and you'll be wearing a big > smile every time

[zfs-discuss] Seperate ZIL

I will be putting 4 500GB SATA disks in my Ultra80. I currently have two 10K rpm 73G SCSI disks in it with 10G for the OS (UFS) and the remaining space for a ZFS pool (the two remaining partitions are setup in a mirror). Would it be worth my while to move all the data off of the zfs partitions of

[zfs-discuss] Some questions about Intent Log Devices

I finally got some new drives for my Ultra 80. I have two 73gig 10K RPM SCSI disks in it now with 60GB in a ZFS mirror. I am going to be adding 4x500G SATA disks in a RAIDZ, and I was thinking about using the "old" zfs space on the SCSI disks for intent logs. My questions are this: 1) Is it possi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended many-port SATA controllers for budget ZFS

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:01:34PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote: > > a) the SuperMicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 is an 8-port SATA card available for > around $110 IIRC. Yeah, I'd like to spend a lot less than that, especially as I only need 2 ports. :) > b) There is also a PCI-X version of the older LSI 4-port (

Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended many-port SATA controllers for budget ZFS

On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:18:21PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote: > > Right now I have noticed that LSI has recently began offering some > > lower-budget stuff; specifically I am looking at the MegaRAID SAS > > 8208ELP/XLP, which are very reasonably priced. I looked up the 8204XLP, which is really q

  1   2   >