On 6/6/2011 5:02 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Yuri Pankov wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:19:50PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
I have implemented a new property for ZFS, refratio, which is the
compression ratio for referenced space (the compressratio is the ratio
Maurice Volaski wrote:
I think my initial response got mangled. Oops.
creating a ZFS pool out of files stored on another ZFS pool. The main
reasons that have been given for not doing this are unknown edge and
corner cases that may lead to deadlocks, and that it creates a complex
structure
Bryan Horstmann-Allen wrote:
+--
| On 2010-11-08 13:27:09, Peter Taps wrote:
|
| From zfs documentation, it appears that a vdev can be built from more vdevs. That is, a raidz vdev can be built across a bunch of mirrored
besson3c wrote:
This has happened to me several times now, I'm confused as to why...
This one particular drive, and its always the same drive, randomly shows up as
being removed from the pool. I have to export and import the pool in order to
have this disk seen again and for re-silvering to
Ross Walker wrote:
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Ian D rewar...@hotmail.com wrote:
Maybe you are experiencing this:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=11942
It does look like this... Is this really the expected behaviour? That's just
unacceptable. It is so bad it
Finding PCIe x1 cards with more than 2 SATA ports is difficult so you
might want to make sure that either your chosen motherboard has lots
of PCIe slots or has some wider slots. If you plan on using on-board
video and re-using the x16 slot for something else, you should verify
that the BIOS
Neil Perrin wrote:
On 10/22/10 15:34, Peter Taps wrote:
Folks,
Let's say I have a volume being shared over iSCSI. The dedup has been
turned on.
Let's say I copy the same file twice under different names at the
initiator end. Let's say each file ends up taking 5 blocks.
For dedupe to
One thing suspicious is that we notice a slow down of one pool when the other
is under load. How can that be?
Ian
A network switch that is being maxed out? Some switches cannot switch
at rated line speed on all their ports all at the same time. Their
internal buses simply don't have
Never Best wrote:
Sorry I couldn't find this anywhere yet. For deduping it is best to have the
lookup table in RAM, but I wasn't too sure how much RAM is suggested?
::Assuming 128KB Block Sizes, and 100% unique data:
1TB*1024*1024*1024/128 = 8388608 Blocks
::Each Block needs 8 byte pointer?
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
unless you use copies=2 or 3, in which case your data is still safe
for those datasets that have this option set.
This advice is a little too optimistic. Increasing the copies property
value on datasets might help in some
Tim Cook wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Haudy Kazemi kaze0...@umn.edu
mailto:kaze0...@umn.edu wrote:
One thing suspicious is that we notice a slow down of one pool
when the other is under load. How can that be?
Ian
A network switch
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:15, Markus Kovero markus.kov...@nebula.fi wrote:
Such configuration was known to cause deadlocks. Even if it works now (which I
don't expect to be the case) it will make your data to be cached twice. The CPU
utilization will also be
Erik Trimble wrote:
On 9/22/2010 11:15 AM, Markus Kovero wrote:
Such configuration was known to cause deadlocks. Even if it works
now (which I don't expect to be the case) it will make your data to
be cached twice. The CPU utilization will also be much higher, etc.
All in all I strongly
Markus Kovero wrote:
What is an example of where a checksummed outside pool would not be able
to protect a non-checksummed inside pool? Would an intermittent
RAM/motherboard/CPU failure that only corrupted the inner pool's block
before it was passed to the outer pool (and did not corrupt the
Richard Elling wrote:
On Sep 13, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Richard Elling [mailto:rich...@nexenta.com]
This operational definition of fragmentation comes from the single-
user,
single-tasking world (PeeCees). In that world, only one thread writes
files
from one
Comment at end...
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 15:27, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: pantz...@gmail.com [mailto:pantz...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Mattias Pantzare
It
is about 1 vdev with 12 disk or 2 vdev with 6 disks. If you have 2
vdev you have to
Erik Trimble wrote:
On 9/9/2010 2:15 AM, taemun wrote:
Erik: does that mean that keeping the number of data drives in a
raidz(n) to a power of two is better? In the example you gave, you
mentioned 14kb being written to each drive. That doesn't sound very
efficient to me.
(when I say the
Christopher George wrote:
What is a NVRAM based SSD?
It is simply an SSD (Solid State Drive) which does not use Flash,
but does use power protected (non-volatile) DRAM, as the primary
storage media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive
I consider the DDRdrive X1 to be a
Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Linus is right with his primary decision, but this also applies for static
linking. See Lawrence Rosen for more information, the GPL does
BM wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek and...@podzimek.org wrote:
I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read
them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic
yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
can
Hello,
This is a consolidated list of ZFS pool and filesystem versions, along
with the builds and systems they are found in. It is based on multiple
online sources. Some of you may find it useful in figuring out where
things are at across the spectrum of systems supporting ZFS including
For the ZFS diaspora:
1.) For the immediate and near term future (say 1 year), what makes a
better choice for a new install of a ZFS-class filesystem? Would it be
FreeBSD 8 with it's older ZFS version (pool version 14), or NexentaCore
with newer ZFS (pool version 25(?) ), NexentaStor, or
Peter Taps wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thank you for your help. At least one part is clear now.
I still am confused about how the system is still functional after one disk
fails.
Consider my earlier example of 3 disks zpool configured for raidz-1. To keep it
simple let's not consider block sizes.
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
Could it somehow not be compiling 64-bit support?
--
Brent Jones
I thought about that but it says when it boots up that it is 64-bit, and I'm
able to run
64-bit binaries. I wonder if it's compiling for the wrong processor
optomization though?
Maybe if it is missing some of the newer
A few things:
1.) did you move your drives around or change which controller each one
was connected to sometime after installing and setting up OpenSolaris?
If so, a pool export and re-import may be in order.
2.) are you sure the drive is failing? Does the problem only affect
this drive
3.) on some systems I've found another version of the iostat command to be more
useful, particularly when iostat -En leaves the serial number field empty or
otherwise doesn't read the serial number correctly. Try
this:
' iostat -Eni ' indeed outputs Device ID on some of the
Marty Scholes wrote:
' iostat -Eni ' indeed outputs Device ID on some of
the drives,but I still
can't understand how it helps me to identify model
of specific drive.
Get and install smartmontools. Period. I resisted it for a few weeks but it
has been an amazing tool. It will tell
Yuri Homchuk wrote:
Well, this is a REALLY 300 users production server with 12 VM's
running on it, so I definitely won't play with a firmware J
I can easily identify which drive is what by physically looking at it.
It's just sad to realize that I cannot trust solaris anymore.
I never
Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
(2) Ubuntu is a desktop distribution. Don't be fooled by their server
version. It's not - it has too many idiosyncrasies and bad design choices to
be a stable server OS. Use
Brandon High wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Cassandra Pugh cp...@pppl.gov wrote:
I was wondering if there is a special option to share out a set of nested
directories? Currently if I share out a directory with
/pool/mydir1/mydir2
on a system, mydir1 shows up, and I can see
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Kyle McDonald
I've been thinking lately that I'm not sure I like the root pool being
unprotected, but I can't afford to give up another drive bay.
I'm guessing
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010, Don wrote:
You could literally split a sata cable and add in some capacitors for
just the cost of the caps themselves. The issue there is whether the
caps would present too large a current drain on initial charge up- If
they do then you need to add
Brian wrote:
Sometimes when it hangs on boot hitting space bar or any key won't bring it
back to the command line. That is why I was wondering if there was a way to
not show the splashscreen at all, and rather show what it was trying to load
when it hangs.
Look at these threads:
Erik Trimble wrote:
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Hi all
I've been doing a lot of testing with dedup and concluded it's not
really ready for production. If something fails, it can render the
pool unuseless for hours or maybe days, perhaps due to single-threded
stuff in zfs. There is also very
I don't really have an explanation. Perhaps flaky second controller
hardware that only works sometimes and can corrupt pools? Have you seen
any other strangeness/instability on this computer?
Did you use zpool export before moving the disks the first time to the
second controller, or did
Can you recreate the problem with a second pool on a second set of
drives, like I described in my earlier post? Right now it seems like
your problem is mostly due to the missing log device. I'm wondering if
that missing log device is what messed up the initial move to the other
controller,
Jan Hellevik wrote:
Yes, I can try to do that. I do not have any more of this brand of disk, but I
guess that does not matter. It will have to wait until tomorrow (I have an
appointment in a few minutes, and it is getting late here in Norway), but I
will try first thing tomorrow. I guess a
Now that you've re-imported, it seems like zpool clear may be the
command you need, based on discussion in these links about missing and
broken zfs logs:
http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg37554.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg30469.html
Is there any chance that the second controller wrote something onto the
disks when it saw the disks attached to it, thus corrupting the ZFS
drive signatures or more?
I've heard that some controllers require drives to be initialized by
them and/or signatures written to drives by them. Maybe
Brandon High wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com wrote:
Is ZFS doing it's magic checksumming and whatnot on this share, even
though it is seeing junk data (NTFS on top of iSCSI...) or am I not
getting any benefits from this setup at all (besides thin
Travis Tabbal wrote:
I have a few old drives here that I thought might help me a little, though not
at much as a nice SSD, for those uses. I'd like to speed up NFS writes, and
there have been some mentions that even a decent HDD can do this, though not to
the same level a good SSD will.
The
aneip wrote:
I really new to zfs and also raid.
I have 3 hard disk, 500GB, 1TB, 1.5TB.
On each HD i wanna create 150GB partition + remaining space.
I wanna create raidz for 3x150GB partition. This is for my document + photo.
You should be able to create 150 GB slices on each drive, and
Sunil wrote:
If you like, you can later add a fifth drive
relatively easily by
replacing one of the slices with a whole drive.
how does this affect my available storage if I were to replace both of those
sparse 500GB files with a real 1TB drive? Will it be same? Or will I have
Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/20/10 04:13 PM, Sunil wrote:
Hi,
I have a strange requirement. My pool consists of 2 500GB disks in
stripe which I am trying to convert into a RAIDZ setup without data
loss but I have only two additional disks: 750GB and 1TB. So, here is
what I thought:
1. Carve a
Any comments on NexentaStor Community/Developer Edition vs EON for
NAS/small server/home server usage? It seems like Nexenta has been
around longer or at least received more press attention. Are there
strong reasons to recommend one over the other? (At one point usable
space would have been
In short, I think an alias for 'zfs inherit' could be added to 'zfs
set' to make it more clear to those of us still new to ZFS. Either
that, or add some additional pointers in the Properties
documentation that the set command can't unset/reset properties.
That would to me be confusing it
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 06:17:44PM -0500, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
I'm wondering what are some use cases for ZFS's utf8only and
normalization properties. They are off/none by default, and can only be
set when the filesystem is created. When should they specifically
Hello,
I'm wondering what are some use cases for ZFS's utf8only and
normalization properties. They are off/none by default, and can only be
set when the filesystem is created. When should they specifically be
enabled and/or disabled? (i.e. Where is using them a really good idea?
Where is
chris wrote:
Ok, so the choice for a MB boils down to:
- Intel desktop MB, no ECC support
This is mostly true. The exceptions are some implementations of the
Socket T LGA 775 (i.e. late Pentium 4 series, and Core 2) D975X and X38
chipsets, and possibly some X48 boards as well. Intel's
Richard Elling wrote:
There are many error correcting codes available. RAID2 used Hamming
codes, but that's just one of many options out there. Par2 uses
configurable strength Reed-Solomon to get multi bit error
correction. The par2 source is available, although from a ZFS
perspective is
Adding additional data protection options are commendable. On the
other hand I feel there are important gaps in the existing feature
set that are worthy of a higher priority, not the least of which is
the automatic recovery of uberblock / transaction group problems (see
Victor Latushkin's
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
We have been told we can have support for OpenSolaris finally, so we
can move the ufs on zvol over to zfs with user-quotas.
Does anyone have any feel for the versions of Solaris that has zfs
user quotas? We will put it on the x4540 for customers.
I have run b114 for
Ian Collins wrote:
David Magda wrote:
On Jun 30, 2009, at 14:08, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
I have seen UPSs help quite a lot for short glitches lasting
seconds, or a minute. Otherwise the outage is usually longer than
the UPSs can stay up since the problem required human attention.
A standby
Hello,
I've looked around Google and the zfs-discuss archives but have not been
able to find a good answer to this question (and the related questions
that follow it):
How well does ZFS handle unexpected power failures? (e.g. environmental
power failures, power supply dying, etc.)
Does it
scrub: resilver completed after 5h50m with 0 errors on Tue Jun 23 05:04:18
2009
Zero errors even though other parts of the message definitely show errors?
This is described here: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbcve?a=view
Device errors do not guarantee pool errors when redundancy
Kees Nuyt wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:50:07 PDT, stephen bond
no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote:
Kees,
is it possible to get at least the contents of /export/home ?
that is supposedly a separate file system.
That doesn't mean that data is in one particular spot on the
disk. The
I think a better question would be: what kind of tests would be most
promising for turning some subclass of these lost pools reported on
the mailing list into an actionable bug?
my first bet would be writing tools that test for ignored sync cache
commands leading to lost writes, and apply them
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
usable with very little CPU consumed.
If the system is dedicated to serving files rather than also being
used interactively, it should not matter much what the CPU usage is.
CPU cycles can't be stored for later use. Ultimately
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rich Teer wrote:
You actually have that backwards. :-) In most cases, compression is
very
desirable. Performance studies have shown that today's CPUs can
compress
data faster
David Magda wrote:
On Tue, June 16, 2009 15:32, Kyle McDonald wrote:
So the cache saves not only the time to access the disk but also the CPU
time to decompress. Given this, I think it could be a big win.
Unless you're in GIMP working on JPEGs, or doing some kind of MPEG video
Brad Hill wrote:
I've seen reports of a recent Seagate firmware update
bricking drives again.
What's the output of 'zpool import' from the LiveCD?
It sounds like
ore than 1 drive is dropping off.
r...@opensolaris:~# zpool import
pool: tank
id: 16342816386332636568
state: FAULTED
Brandon High wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 4:48 AM, kilamanjaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is ZFS ready today to link a set of dispersed desktop computers (diverse
operating systems) into a distributed RAID volume that supports desktops
It sounds like you'd want to use something like
Brandon High wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 4:48 AM, kilamanjaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is ZFS ready today to link a set of dispersed desktop computers (diverse
operating systems) into a distributed RAID volume that supports desktops
It sounds like you'd want to use something like
a FAULTED pool
instead of a DEGRADED pool.)
Thanks,
-hk
Haudy Kazemi wrote:
Hello,
I'm writing to report what I think is an incorrect or conflicting
suggestion in the error message displayed on a faulted pool that does
not have redundancy (equiv to RAID0?). I ran across this while
On Jul 9 2007, Domingos Soares wrote:
Hi,
It might be interesting to focus on compression algorithms which are
optimized for particular workloads and data types, an Oracle database for
example.
Yes, I agree. That is what I meant when I said The study might be
extended to the analysis of data
67 matches
Mail list logo
