On 07/23/2010 02:39 AM, tomwaters wrote:
Re the CPU, do not go low power Atom etc, go a newish
Core2 duo...the power differential at idle is bugger all
and when you want to use the nas, ZFS will make good use
of the CPU.
Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price
Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD
quad-core is
I know a lot of CPU cycles is a relative term. But I never notice CPU
utilization, even under the
On 7/24/2010 8:12 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price
Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD
quad-core is
I know a lot of CPU cycles is a relative term. But I
On Jul 24, 2010, at 5:37 PM, JavaWebDev wrote:
On 7/24/2010 8:12 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price
Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD
quad-core is
I
I've been looking at using consumer 2.5 drives also, I think the ones I've
settled on are the hitachi 7K500 500 GB. These are 7200 rpm, I'm concerned the
5400's might be a little too low performance wise. The main reasons for hitachi
were performance seems to be among the top 2 or 3 in the
There is alot there to reply to...but I will try and help...
Re. TLER. Do not worry about TLER when using ZFS. ZFS will handle it either way
and will NOT time out and drop the drive...it may wait a long time, but it will
not time out and drop the drive - nor will it have an issue if you do
I've found the Seagate 7200.12 1tb drives and Hitachi 7k2000 2TB drives to
be by far the best.
I've read lots of horror stories about any WD drive with 4k
sectorsit'sbest to stay away from them.
I've also read plenty of people say that the green drives are terrible.
On 7/23/2010 3:39 AM, tomwaters wrote:
There is alot there to reply to...but I will try and help...
Re. TLER. Do not worry about TLER when using ZFS. ZFS will handle it either way and will
NOT time out and drop the drive...it may wait a long time, but it will not time out and
drop the drive
I wanted to build a small back up (maybe also NAS) server using
A common question that I am trying to get answered (and have a few) here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=102368tstart=0
Rob
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Using a new email client and didn't notice that I didn't reply to the
list. Since it might be helpful to others here are the missing bits.
On 7/21/2010 5:07 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
We use the 500 GB versions attached to 3Ware controllers (configured
as Single Disk arrays). They work quite
I wanted to build a small back up (maybe also NAS) server using
OpenSolaris and ZFS using consumer drives but after reading a number of
threads and blogs I'm totally confused and was hoping I could get some
questions answered since many people have been using consumer drives
with zfs.
When
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM, JavaWebDev javaweb...@verizon.net wrote:
1. WD Caviar Black
Can they be used with in raidz or mirrors?
We use the 500 GB versions attached to 3Ware controllers (configured
as Single Disk arrays). They work quite nicely.
With the new
On 01/07/2010 23:58, Derek Olsen wrote:
Folks.
My env is Solaris 10 update 8 amd64. Does LUN alignment matter when I'm
creating zpool's on disks (lun's) with EFI labels and providing zpool the
entire disk?
http://blogs.sun.com/dlutz/entry/partition_alignment_guidelines_for_unified
--
On Jul 1, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Derek Olsen wrote:
doh! It turns out the host in question is actually a Solaris 10 update 6
host. It appears that an Solaris 10 update 8 host actually sets the start
sector at 256.
Yes, this is a silly bug, fixed years ago.
So to simplify the question. If
Folks.
My env is Solaris 10 update 8 amd64. Does LUN alignment matter when I'm
creating zpool's on disks (lun's) with EFI labels and providing zpool the
entire disk?
I recently read some sun/oracle docs and blog posts about adjusting the
starting sector for partition 0 (in format -e) to
doh! It turns out the host in question is actually a Solaris 10 update 6 host.
It appears that an Solaris 10 update 8 host actually sets the start sector at
256.
So to simplify the question. If I'm using ZFS with EFI label and full disk
do I even need to worry about lun alignment? I was
did this come out?
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gman/opensolaris-whats-new-2010-05/
i was googling trying to find info about the next release and ran across
this
Does this mean it's actually about to come out before the end of the month
or is this something else?
never mindjust found more info on this...shoudl have held back from
asking
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Thomas Burgess wonsl...@gmail.com wrote:
did this come out?
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gman/opensolaris-whats-new-2010-05/
i was googling trying to find info about the next
Hi, all,
I think I'm missing a concept with import and export. I'm working on
installing a Nexenta b134 system under Xen, and I have to run the installer
under hvm mode, then I'm trying to get it back up under pv mode. In that
process the controller names change, and that's where I'm getting
On Sun, February 22, 2009 23:37, Frank Cusack wrote:
On February 22, 2009 9:56:02 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
wrote:
On Sun, February 22, 2009 21:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
Your example worked because you are only replicating a filesystem
within the root pool. This works because
On Sun, February 22, 2009 00:15, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
First, it fails because the destination directory doesn't exist. Then it
fails because it DOES exist. I really expected one of those to work. So,
what am I confused about now? (Running 2008.11)
# zpool import -R /backups/bup-ruin
I'm actually working on this for an application at my org. I'll try
to post my work somewhere when done (hopefully this week).
Are you keeping in mind the fact that the '-i' option needs a pair of
snapshots (original and current) to work properly?
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM, David
On February 22, 2009 1:14:44 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
wrote:
(Note that I need to back up two pools, rpool and zp1, from the destkop on
the the single external pool bup-ruin. I'm importing bup-ruin with
altroot to avoid the mountoints of the backed-up filesystems on it
On Sun, February 22, 2009 16:31, Blake wrote:
I'm actually working on this for an application at my org. I'll try
to post my work somewhere when done (hopefully this week).
That'd be cool. I'm converting from rsync to send/receive because I
upgraded to 2008.11 and started using CIFS, so I
On Sun, February 22, 2009 18:11, Frank Cusack wrote:
On February 22, 2009 1:14:44 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
wrote:
(Note that I need to back up two pools, rpool and zp1, from the destkop
on
the the single external pool bup-ruin. I'm importing bup-ruin with
altroot to avoid
On February 22, 2009 8:03:38 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
wrote:
On Sun, February 22, 2009 18:11, Frank Cusack wrote:
Did you see my other thread on this specific topic? You can't backup
the root pool using zfs send -R | zfs recv.
Nope, somehow missed the import of that.
I'm
Frank Cusack wrote:
When you try to backup the '/' part of the root pool, it will get
mounted on the altroot itself, which is of course already occupied.
At that point, the receive will fail.
So far as I can tell, mounting the received filesystem is the last
step in the process. So I guess
On Sun, February 22, 2009 21:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
On February 22, 2009 8:03:38 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
wrote:
On Sun, February 22, 2009 18:11, Frank Cusack wrote:
Did you see my other thread on this specific topic? You can't backup
the root pool using zfs send -R | zfs
Dave wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
When you try to backup the '/' part of the root pool, it will get
mounted on the altroot itself, which is of course already occupied.
At that point, the receive will fail.
So far as I can tell, mounting the received filesystem is the last
step in the
On February 22, 2009 9:56:02 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
wrote:
On Sun, February 22, 2009 21:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
On February 22, 2009 8:03:38 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
wrote:
On Sun, February 22, 2009 18:11, Frank Cusack wrote:
Did you see my other thread on
First, it fails because the destination directory doesn't exist. Then it
fails because it DOES exist. I really expected one of those to work. So,
what am I confused about now? (Running 2008.11)
# zpool import -R /backups/bup-ruin bup-ruin
# zfs send -R z...@bup-20090222-054457utc | zfs
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
I found this entry helpful:
http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/solaris_cifs_in_workgroup_mode
There is a comment in those directions about installing a SMB PAM
module:
6. Install the SMB PAM module
Add the below line to the end of
On 02/19/09 13:14, Harry Putnam wrote:
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
I found this entry helpful:
http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/solaris_cifs_in_workgroup_mode
There is a comment in those directions about installing a SMB PAM
module:
6. Install the SMB PAM module
Add
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:14:07 -0600
Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
I found this entry helpful:
http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/solaris_cifs_in_workgroup_mode
There is a comment in those directions about installing a SMB PAM
On 02/19/09 13:20, James C. McPherson wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:14:07 -0600
Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
I found this entry helpful:
http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/solaris_cifs_in_workgroup_mode
There is a comment in those
Harry Putnam wrote:
There is a comment in those directions about installing a SMB PAM
module:
6. Install the SMB PAM module
Add the below line to the end of /etc/pam.conf:
other password required pam_smb_passwd.so.1 nowarn
Do you know what that is?
It's part of the
Harry Putnam wrote:
Here is where I need some kind of brief outline telling what all is
needed to get that to happen.
When I look at the server, Its said to be in `maintenance mode'
# svcs | grep smb
online 18:40:45 svc:/network/smb/client:default
maintenance23:55:48
Ian Collins wrote:
Harry Putnam wrote:
[...]
Still when I look again... its still in maintenance mode.
What does tail /var/svc/log/network-smb-server:default.log show?
The log file for a service listed as part of the long listing (svcs -l
smb/server).
Following these two commands:
You definitely need SUNWsmbskr - the cifs server provided with
OpenSolaris is tied to the kernel at some low level.
I found this entry helpful:
http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/solaris_cifs_in_workgroup_mode
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Ian
Blake wrote:
You definitely need SUNWsmbskr - the cifs server provided with
OpenSolaris is tied to the kernel at some low level.
I found this entry helpful:
http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/solaris_cifs_in_workgroup_mode
Looks like it will be immensely so..
However it appears from the
have you made sure that samba is *disabled*?
svcs samba
?
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Blake wrote:
You definitely need SUNWsmbskr - the cifs server provided with
OpenSolaris is tied to the kernel at some low level.
I found this entry helpful:
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes:
have you made sure that samba is *disabled*?
svcs samba
?
First..good news ... its working.
About samba:
Yeah, that was one of the things I did find while googling. But
apparently that package is not installed by default.. it was not
installed here at
I'm hoping to get some general clues about what all is required to get
an experiment going with zfs.
I've managed to install osol-11 in a vmware on windowsXP host from a
recent *.iso.
I'm following along with Simon's blog showing how to set up ZFS. I'm
newbie with both ZFS and Solaris but the
Stuart Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:07:53PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Personally, I'd estimate using du rather than ls.
They report the exact same number as far as I can tell. With the caveat
that Solaris ls -s returns the number of 512-byte blocks, whereas
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 03:51:17PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed bytes.
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=ZFS_PROP_COMPRESSRATIOdefs=refs=path=zfshist=project=%2Fonnv
IMHO, you will (almost) never get the same
Stuart Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 03:51:17PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed bytes.
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=ZFS_PROP_COMPRESSRATIOdefs=refs=path=zfshist=project=%2Fonnv
IMHO, you will
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:00AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Stuart Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 03:51:17PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed
bytes.
Stuart Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:00AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Stuart Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 03:51:17PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed
bytes.
Stuart Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They report the exact same number as far as I can tell. With the caveat
that Solaris ls -s returns the number of 512-byte blocks, whereas
GNU ls -s returns the number of 1024byte blocks by default.
IIRC, this may be controlled by environment variables
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:07:53PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Personally, I'd estimate using du rather than ls.
They report the exact same number as far as I can tell. With the caveat
that Solaris ls -s returns the number of 512-byte blocks, whereas
GNU ls -s returns the number of
This may be my ignorance, but I thought all modern unix filesystems created
sparse files in this way?
-Original Message-
From: Stuart Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:45:03
To:Luke Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss
Message-
From: Stuart Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:45:03
To:Luke Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:22:03PM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote:
Stuart Anderson wrote
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Luke Scharf wrote:
AFAIK, ext3 supports sparse files just like it should -- but it doesn't
dynamically figure out what to write based on the contents of the file.
Since zfs inspects all data anyway in order to compute the block
checksum, it can easily know if a block is
zfs list /export/compress
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
export-cit/compress 90.4M 1.17T 90.4M /export/compress
is 2GB/90.4M = 2048 / 90.4 = 22.65
That still leaves me puzzled what the precise definition of compressratio is?
My guess is that
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 01:37:43PM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote:
zfs list /export/compress
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
export-cit/compress 90.4M 1.17T 90.4M /export/compress
is 2GB/90.4M = 2048 / 90.4 = 22.65
That still leaves me puzzled what the
UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed bytes.
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=ZFS_PROP_COMPRESSRATIOdefs=refs=path=zfshist=project=%2Fonnv
IMHO, you will (almost) never get the same number looking at bytes as you
get from counting blocks.
-- richard
Stuart Anderson wrote:
As an artificial test, I created a filesystem with compression enabled
and ran mkfile 1g and the reported compressratio for that filesystem
is 1.00x even though this 1GB file only uses only 1kB.
ZFS seems to treat files filled with zeroes as sparse files, regardless
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:59:48AM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote:
Stuart Anderson wrote:
As an artificial test, I created a filesystem with compression enabled
and ran mkfile 1g and the reported compressratio for that filesystem
is 1.00x even though this 1GB file only uses only 1kB.
ZFS
Stuart Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:59:48AM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote:
Stuart Anderson wrote:
As an artificial test, I created a filesystem with compression enabled
and ran mkfile 1g and the reported compressratio for that filesystem
is 1.00x even though this 1GB file
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:22:03PM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote:
Stuart Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:59:48AM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote:
Stuart Anderson wrote:
As an artificial test, I created a filesystem with compression enabled
and ran mkfile 1g and the reported
I am confused by the numerical value of compressratio. I copied a
compressed ZFS filesystem that is 38.5G in size (zfs list USED and
REFER value) and reports a compressratio value of 2.52x to an
uncompressed ZFS filesystem and it expanded to 198G. So why is the
compressratio 2.52 rather than
61 matches
Mail list logo
