On 6 Nov 2008, at 04:09, Vincent Fox wrote:
> According to the slides I have seen, a ZFS filesystem even on a
> single disk can handle massive amounts of sector failure before it
> becomes unusable. I seem to recall it said 1/8th of the disk? So
> even on a single disk the redundancy in t
On 25 Sep 2008, at 17:14, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Chris Gerhard has a zfs_versions script that might help:
> http://blogs.sun.com/chrisg/entry/that_there_is
Ah. Cool. I will have to try this out.
Jonathan
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@ope
On 25 Sep 2008, at 14:40, Ross wrote:
> For a default setup, I would have thought a years worth of data
> would be enough, something like:
Given that this can presumably be configured to suit everyone's
particular data retention plan, for a default setup, what was
originally proposed seems
On 14 Jul 2008, at 16:07, Will Murnane wrote:
> As long as I'm composing an email, I might as well mention that I had
> forgotten to mention Swig as a dependency (d'oh!). I now have a
> mention of it on the page, and a spec file that can be built using
> pkgtool. If you tried this before and gav
On 9 Jun 2008, at 14:59, Thomas Maier-Komor wrote:
>> time gdd if=/dev/zero bs=1048576 count=10240 of=/data/video/x
>>
>> real 0m13.503s
>> user 0m0.016s
>> sys 0m8.981s
>>
>>
>
> Are you sure gdd doesn't create a sparse file?
One would presumably expect it to be instantaneous if it was creating
On 30 May 2008, at 15:49, J.P. King wrote:
> For _my_ purposes I'd be happy with zfs send/receive, if only it was
> guaranteed to be compatible between versions. I agree that the
> inability
> to extract single files is an irritation - I am not sure why this is
> anything more than an implement
On 29 May 2008, at 17:52, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> The first issue alone makes 'zfs send' completely unsuitable for the
> purposes that we currently use ufsdump. I don't believe that we've
> lost
> a complete filesystem in years, but we restore accidentally deleted
> files all the time. (And sn
On 29 May 2008, at 15:51, Thomas Maier-Komor wrote:
>> I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is
>> 'zfs
>> send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
>> actual on disk layout and is an integrated part of the filesystem
>> implementation.
>>
>> s
Hi all,
I'm new to this list and ZFS, so forgive me if I'm re-hashing an old
topic. I'm also using ZFS on FreeBSD not Solaris, so forgive me for
being a heretic ;-)
I recently setup a home NAS box and decided that ZFS is the only
sensible way to manage 4TB of disks. The primary use of the b
