> From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
>
> > B-trees should be logarithmic time, which is the best O() you can possibly
> > achieve. So if HFS+ is dog slow, it's an implementation detail and not a
> > general fault of b-trees.
>
> Hash tables can do much better than O(log N) for se
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
>>
>> Is it really B-Tree based? Apple's HFS+ is B-Tree based and falls
>> apart (in terms of performance) when you get to
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 14:40, Paul Kraus wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote:
>
>> LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
>> btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
>> Check wikipedia. (This i
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
>
> Is it really B-Tree based? Apple's HFS+ is B-Tree based and falls
> apart (in terms of performance) when you get too many objects in one
> FS, which is specifically what drove us
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
> LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
> btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
> Check wikipedia. (This isn't really true, but I like to joke, after saying
> somet
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Liu
>
> Why not give some tolerance to Btrfs? You can kindly drop an email to
> its mail list for any issue you are not satisfied with.
> Satirize or lampoon does not make sense to any ope
On 11/13/2011 05:18 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
>> btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
>> Check wikipedia. (This isn't really true, but I like to joke, after
>> saying something like t
> LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
> btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
> Check wikipedia. (This isn't really true, but I like to joke, after
> saying something like that, I wrote the wikipedia page just now.) ;-)
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
>>
>> All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS,
> and it's
>> one that is clearly being co
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
>
> All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS,
and it's
> one that is clearly being completely ignored by btrfs: ease of use. The
zfs
> command set is
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Paul Kraus wrote:
> The command syntax paradigm of zfs (command sub-command object
> parameters) is not unique to zfs, but seems to have been the "way of
> doing things" in Solaris 10. The _new_ functions of Solaris 10 were
> all this way (to the best of my knowled
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Linder, Doug
wrote:
> Paul Kraus wrote:
>
>>> My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here
>>
>> What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS)
>
> All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS, and
> it's one that is
Paul Kraus wrote:
>> My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here
>
> What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS)
All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS, and
it's one that is clearly being completely ignored by btrfs: ease of use. The
zfs
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:13:56AM -0400, David Magda wrote:
> On Wed, October 19, 2011 08:15, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>
> > Fsck can only fix known file system inconsistencies in file system
> > structures. Because there is no atomicity of operations in UFS and other
> > file systems it is pos
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Garrett D'Amore
wrote:
> I'd argue that from a *developer* point of view, an fsck tool for ZFS might
> well be useful. Isn't that what zdb is for? :-)
>
> But ordinary administrative users should never need something like this,
> unless they have encountered a b
I'd argue that from a *developer* point of view, an fsck tool for ZFS might
well be useful. Isn't that what zdb is for? :-)
But ordinary administrative users should never need something like this, unless
they have encountered a bug in ZFS itself. (And bugs are as likely to exist in
the checke
On 10/18/11 03:31 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Peter Tribble
mailto:peter.trib...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook mailto:t...@cook.ms>> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble
mailto:peter.trib...@gm
On Wed, October 19, 2011 08:15, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> Fsck can only fix known file system inconsistencies in file system
> structures. Because there is no atomicity of operations in UFS and other
> file systems it is possible that when you remove a file, your system can
> crash between remo
Thank you. The following is the best "layman's" explanation as to
_why_ ZFS does not have an fsck equivalent (or even needs one). On the
other hand, there are situations where you really do need to force ZFS
to do something that may not be a"good idea", but is the best of a bad
set of choices. Henc
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 08:40:59AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> fsck verifies the logical consistency of a filesystem. For UFS, this
> includes: used data blocks are allocated to exactly one file,
> directory entries point to valid inodes, allocated inodes have at
> least one link, the number of l
On Oct 18, 2011, at 6:35 PM, David Magda wrote:
> If we've found one bad disk, what are our options?
Live with it or replace it :-)
-- richard
--
ZFS and performance consulting
http://www.RichardElling.com
VMworld Copenhagen, October 17-20
OpenStorage Summit, San Jose, CA, October 24-27
LISA
On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:35, Brian Wilson wrote:
> Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command - and that really used to bug me - it
> does now have a -F option on zpool import. To me it's the same functionality
> for my environment - the ability to try to roll back to a 'hopefully' good
> state and
On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:35, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> In fact, I saw, actual work started on this task about a month ago. So it's
> not just planned, it's really in the works. Now we're talking open source
> timelines here, which means, "you'll get it when it's ready," and nobody
> knows when th
On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:26, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Yes, but when scrub encounters uncorrectable errors, it doesn't attempt to
> correct them. Fsck will do things like recover lost files into the
> lost+found directory, and stuff like that...
You say "recover lost files" like you know that the
> From: Fajar A. Nugraha [mailto:w...@fajar.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:46 PM
>
> > * In btrfs, there is no equivalent or alternative to "zfs send | zfs
> > receive"
>
> Planned. No actual working implementation yet.
In fact, I saw, actual work started on this task about a month ago
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >> Doesn't a scrub do more than what 'fsck' does?
> >
> > It does different things. I'm not sure about "more".
>
> Zfs scrub val
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
>
> I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed
> it. You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically fix
it.
That's probably just because
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
>
> I have done a "poor man's" rebalance by copying data after adding
> devices. I know this is not a substitute for a real online rebalance,
> but it gets the job done (if you can t
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
> I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
> similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
>
> Differences:
> * Obviously, one is meant for linux and the other solaris (etc)
> * In btrfs, the
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Gregory Shaw wrote:
> I came to the conclusion that btrfs isn't ready for prime time. I'll
> re-evaluate as development continues and the missing portions are provided.
For someone with @oracle.com email address, you could probably arrive
to that conclusion fast
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Doesn't a scrub do more than what 'fsck' does?
It does different things. I'm not sure about "more".
Zfs scrub validates user data while 'fsck' does not. I consider that
as being definitely "more".
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.u
On 2011-Oct-18 23:18:02 +1100, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
>I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
>similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Thanks for that.
>* zfs has storage tiering. (cache & log devices, such as SSD's to
>accelerate perf
On 10/19/11 09:31 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed
it. You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically
fix it.
I'm another, I have had many cases of ZFS fixing corrupted data on a
number of different pool configurati
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>
> I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed it.
> You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically fix it.
Well, here comes another person - I have ZFS automatically fixing
corrupted data on a number
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed it.
> You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically fix it.
I have had ZFS automatically repair corrupted raw data when one
component of the redundancy
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Every scrub I've ever done that has found an er
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>> >
>> > Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual
>> > fixing.
>> > Every pool I've ever created has b
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> >
> > Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual
> fixing.
> > Every pool I've ever created has been raid-z or raid-z2, so the silent
> > healing, while a great stor
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual fixing.
> Every pool I've ever created has been raid-z or raid-z2, so the silent
> healing, while a great story, has never actually happened in practice in any
> environment I'v
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:05:29 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> >> Doesn't a scrub do more than what
> >> 'fsck' does?
> >>
> > Not really. fsck will work on an offline filesystem to correct errors
> and
> > bring it back online. Scrub won't even wor
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:05:29 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
>> Doesn't a scrub do more than what
>> 'fsck' does?
>>
> Not really. fsck will work on an offline filesystem to correct errors and
> bring it back online. Scrub won't even work until the filesystem is already
> imported and online. If it's co
On 10/19/11 01:18 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Differences:
* Obviously, one is meant for linux and the other solaris (etc)
* In btrfs, there is only raid1. T
On 10/19/11 03:12 AM, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Darren J Moffat
wrote:
On 10/18/11 14:04, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for new writes so that we will get
to a more even spread. It doesn't go and move a
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
> >> I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used
> to
> >> make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24
On 10/18/11 11:46 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
>> I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
>> make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
>> Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck comm
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
> I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
> make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
> Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command - and that really used to bug me - it
> does now have
On 10/18/11 07:18 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Harry Putnam
As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary
from some of the pros here as to any comparison of zfs against b
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Gregory Shaw wrote:
I'm seriously thinking about converting the Linux system in question
into a FreeBSD system so that I can use ZFS.
FreeBSD is a wonderfully stable, coherent, and well-documented system
which has stood the test of time and has an excellent development
Gregory Shaw writes:
> I looked into btrfs some time ago for the same reasons. I had a Linux
> system that I wanted to do more intelligent things with storage.
Great details, thanks.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mai
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Darren J Moffat
wrote:
> On 10/18/11 14:04, Jim Klimov wrote:
>>
>> 2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
>>>
>>> ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for new writes so that we will get
>>> to a more even spread. It doesn't go and move already written blocks
>>>
Edward Ned Harvey
writes:
> I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
> similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Great input.. thanks for the details.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@openso
I looked into btrfs some time ago for the same reasons. I had a Linux system
that I wanted to do more intelligent things with storage.
However, I reverted to Ext3/4 and MD because of the portions of btrfs that
haven't been completed. It seems that btrfs development is very slow, which
doesn
On 10/18/11 14:04, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
On 10/18/11 13:18, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* btrfs is able to balance. (after adding new blank devices,
rebalance, so
the data& workload are distributed across all the devices.) zfs is not
able to do this yet.
ZFS
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
On 10/18/11 13:18, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* btrfs is able to balance. (after adding new blank devices,
rebalance, so
the data& workload are distributed across all the devices.) zfs is not
able to do this yet.
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for ne
On 10/18/11 13:18, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* btrfs is able to balance. (after adding new blank devices, rebalance, so
the data& workload are distributed across all the devices.) zfs is not
able to do this yet.
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for new writes so that we will get to
a more
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Harry Putnam
>
> FreeNAS and freebsd.
>
> Maybe you can give a little synopsis of those too. I mean when it
> comes to utilizing zfs; is it much the same as if running it on
> solaris?
For s
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Harry Putnam
>
> As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary
> from some of the pros here as to any comparison of zfs against btrfs.
I recently put my first btrfs sy
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Freddie Cash writes:
>
> > If you only want RAID0 or RAID1, then btrfs is okay. There's no support
> for
> > RAID5+ as yet, and it's been "in development" for a couple of years now.
>
> [...] snipped excellent information
>
> Thanks much,
Freddie Cash writes:
> If you only want RAID0 or RAID1, then btrfs is okay. There's no support for
> RAID5+ as yet, and it's been "in development" for a couple of years now.
[...] snipped excellent information
Thanks much, I've very appreciative of the good information. Much
better to hear f
Or, if you absolutely must run linux for the operating system, see:
http://zfsonlinux.org/
On Oct 17, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Freddie Cash wrote:
> If you absolutely must run Linux on your storage server, for whatever reason,
> then you probably won't be running ZFS. For the next year or two, it wou
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here
What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS)
> and I wondered how btrfs stacks up on the basic qualities.
I use ZFS @ work because it is the only FS we have been able to
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> This subject may have been ridden to death... I missed it if so.
>
> Not wanting to start a flame fest or whatever but
>
> As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary
> from some of the pros here as to any compa
This subject may have been ridden to death... I missed it if so.
Not wanting to start a flame fest or whatever but
As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary
from some of the pros here as to any comparison of zfs against btrfs.
I realize btrfs is a lot less `finis
64 matches
Mail list logo