Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Are there any plans to support ZFS for write-only media such as
optical storage? It seems that if mirroring or even zraid is used
that ZFS would be a good basis for long term archival storage.
I'm just going to assume that write-only here means write-once,
read-many,
Matt Cohen wrote:
We have a system with two drives in it, part UFS, part ZFS. It's a software
mirrored system with slices 0,1,3 setup as small UFS slices, and slice 4 on
each drive being the ZFS slice.
One of the drives is failing and we need to replace it.
I just want to make sure I
Ed Gould wrote:
On Jan 26, 2007, at 12:13, Richard Elling wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:05:17AM -0800, Ed Gould wrote:
A number that I've been quoting, albeit without a good reference,
comes from Jim Gray, who has been around the data-management industry
for longer than I have (and I've
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Dana H. Myers wrote:
Ed Gould wrote:
On Jan 26, 2007, at 12:13, Richard Elling wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:05:17AM -0800, Ed Gould wrote:
A number that I've been quoting, albeit without a good reference,
comes from Jim Gray, who has been around
Neal Pollack wrote:
I have an 800GB raidz2 zfs filesystem. It already has approx 142Gb of
data.
Can I simply turn on compression at this point, or do you need to start
with compression at the creation time?
As I understand it, you can turn compression on and off at will.
Data will be written
Karen Chau wrote:
How do you reconfigure ZFS on the server after an OS upgrade? I have a
ZFS pool on a 6130 storge array.
After upgrade the data on the storage array is still intact, but ZFS
configuration is gone due to new OS.
Do I use the same commands/procedure to recreate the zpool,
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 1, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
Followup: When you say you fixed the HW, I'm curious as to what you
found and if this experience with ZFS convinced you that your trusted
RAID
H/W did, in fact, have issues?
Do you think that it's likely
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 1, 2006, at 4:34 PM, Dana H. Myers wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 1, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
Followup: When you say you fixed the HW, I'm curious as to what you
found and if this experience with ZFS convinced you
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
[...]
I don't think that the issue here, it's more one of perceived data
integrity. People who have been happily using a single RAID 5 are now
finding that the array has been silently corrupting their data.
Al Hopper wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Dana H. Myers wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
Memory: DDR-400 - your choice but Kingston is always a safe bet. 2*512Mb
sticks for a starter, cost effective, system. 4*512Mb for a good long
term solution.
Due to fan-out considerations, every BIOS I've seen
Neal Miskin wrote:
Hi Robert
When ZFS can't write to a pool then it panics system.
Thanks for the info.
I find this hard to understand though, the same wouldnt happen for VxVM or
SVM. Is this a flaw with zfs?
It is ZFS bug 6322646; a flaw.
Dana
Richard Elling wrote:
Michael Schuster - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Sean Meighan wrote:
I am not sure if this is ZFS, Niagara or something else issue? Does
someone know why commands have the latency shown below?
*1) do a ls of a directory. 6.9 seconds total, truss only shows .07
seconds.*
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 14:15, Neil Perrin wrote:
Of course we would need to stress the dangers of setting 'deferred'.
What do you guys think?
I can think of a use case for deferred: improving the efficiency of a
large mega-transaction/batch job
Richard Elling wrote:
Erik Trimble wrote:
Oh, and the newest thing in the consumer market is called hybrid
drives, which is a melding of a Flash drive with a Winchester
drive. It's originally targetted at the laptop market - think a 1GB
flash memory welded to a 40GB 2.5 hard drive in the
Robert Milkowski wrote:
I issued svcadm disable nfs/server
nfsd is still there with about 1300 threads (down from 2052).
stack pointer for thread 3002f4bd300: 2a1084b7021
[ 02a1084b7021 cv_wait+0x40() ]
02a1084b70d1 exitlwps+0x11c(0, 20, 4202, 300116ec7e0, 10,
Phil Brown wrote:
Pawel Wojcik wrote:
Only SATA drives that operate under SATA framework and SATA HBA
drivers have this option available to them via format -e. That's
because they are treated and controlled by the system as scsi drives.
From your e-mail it appears that you are talking about
Dana H. Myers wrote:
Phil Brown wrote:
Pawel Wojcik wrote:
Only SATA drives that operate under SATA framework and SATA HBA
drivers have this option available to them via format -e. That's
because they are treated and controlled by the system as scsi drives.
From your e-mail it appears
17 matches
Mail list logo
