We use this configuration. It works fine. However I don't know enough about the
details to answer all of your questions.
The disks are accessible from both systems at the same time. Of course with ZFS
you had better not actually use them from both systems.
Actually, let me be clear about what
We're getting the notorious cannot destroy ... dataset already exists. I've
seen a number of reports of this, but none of the reports seem to get any
response. Fortunately this is a backup system, so I can recreate the pool, but
it's going to take me several days to get all the data back. Is
Incidentally, this is on Solaris 10, but I've seen identical reports from
Opensolaris.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
# zfs destroy -r OIRT_BAK/backup_bad
cannot destroy 'OIRT_BAK/backup_...@annex-2010-03-23-07:04:04-bad': dataset
already exists
No, there are no clones.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
So we tried recreating the pool and sending the data again.
1) compression wasn't set on the copy, even though I did sent -R, which is
supposed to send all properties
2) I tried killing to send | receive pipe. Receive couldn't be killed. It hung.
3) This is Solaris Cluster. We tried forcing a
Ah, I hadn't thought about that. That may be what was happening. Thanks.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
So that eliminates one of my concerns. However the other one is still an issue.
Presumably Solaris Cluster shouldn't import a pool that's still active on the
other system. We'll be looking more carefully into that.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
I talked with our enterprise systems people recently. I don't believe they'd
consider ZFS until it's more flexible. Shrink is a big one, as is removing an
slog. We also need to be able to expand a raidz, possibly by striping it with a
second one and then rebalancing the sizes.
--
This message
We recently moved a Mysql database from NFS (Netapp) to a local disk array
(J4200 with SAS disks). Shortly after moving production, the system effectively
hung. CPU was at 100%, and one disk drive was at 100%.
I had tried to follow the tuning recommendations for Mysql mostly:
* recordsize set
We had been using the same pool for a backup Mysql server for 6 months before
using it for the primary server. Neither zpool status -v nor fmdump shows any
signs of problems.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
I hadn't considered stress testing the disks. Obviously that's a good idea.
We'll look at doing something in May, when we have the next opportunity to take
down the database. I doubt that doing testing during production is a good
idea...
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Thanks. That makes sense. This is raidz2.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I have the following pool:
NAME SIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT
OIRT 6.31T 3.72T 2.59T58% ONLINE /
zfs list shows the following for a typical file system:
NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
OIRT/sakai/production 1.40T 1.77T 1.40T
I have a similar situation. I have a system that is used for backup copies of
logs and other non-critical things, where the primary copy is on a Netapp. Data
gets written in batches a few times a day. We use this system because storage
on it is a lot less expensive than on the Netapp. It's only
From the web page it looks like this is a card that goes into the computer
system. That's not very useful for enterprise applications, as they are going
to want to use an external array that can be used by a redundant pair of
servers.
I'm very interested in a cost-effective device that will
We have a server using Solaris 10. It's a pair of systems with a shared J4200,
with Solaris cluster. It works very nicely. Solaris cluster switches over
transparently.
However as an NFS server it is dog-slow. This is the usual synchronous write
problem. Setting zfs_disable fixes the problem.
Thanks. That's what I was looking for.
Yikes! I hadn't realized how expensive the Zeus is.
We're using Solaris cluster, so if the system goes down, the other one takes
over. That means that if the ZIL is on a local disk, we lose it in a crash.
Might as well just set zil_disable (something I'm
It turns out that our storage is currently being used for
* backups of various kinds, run daily by cron jobs
* saving old log files from our production application
* saving old versions of java files from our production application
Most of the usage is write-only, and a fair amount of it
I'd like to maintain a backup of the main pool on an external drive. Can you
suggest a way to do that? I was hoping to do zfs send | zfs receive and then do
that with incrementals. It seems that this isn't going to work. How do people
actually back up ZFS-based systems?
--
This message posted
I'm trying to do a simple backup. I did
zfs snapshot -r rp...@snapshot
zfs send -R rp...@snapshot | zfs receive -Fud external/rpool
zfs snapshot -r rp...@snapshot2
zfs send -RI rp...@snapshot1 rp...@snapshot2 | zfs receive -d external/rpool
The receive coredumps
$c
I have a small system that is going to be a file server. It has two disks. I'd
like just one pool for data. Is it possible to create two pools on the boot
disk, and then add the second disk to the second pool? The result would be a
single small pool for root, and a second pool containing the
I have a USB disk, to which I want to do a backup. I've used send | receive. It
works fine until I try to reboot. At that point the system fails to come up
because the backup copy is set to be mounted at the original location so the
system tries to mount two different things the same place. I
22 matches
Mail list logo
