similar to: ZFS ok for single disk dev box?

Hi, There''s something really bizarre in ZFS snaphot specs : "Uses no separate backing store." . Hum...if I want to mutualize one physical volume somewhere in my SAN as THE snaphots backing-store...it becomes impossible to do ! Really bad. Is there any chance to have a "backing-store-file" option in a future release ? In the same idea, it would be great to

Greetings, I followed closely the thread "ZFS and Storage", and other discussions about using ZFS on hardware RAID arrays, since we are deploying ZFS in a similar situation here. I''m sure I''m oversimplifying, but the consensus for general filesystem-type storage needs, as I''ve read it, tends toward doing ZFS RAID-Z (or RAID-Z2) on LUNS consisting of hardware

Hi folks, Myself and a colleague are currently involved in a prototyping exercise to evaluate ZFS against our current filesystem. We are looking at the best way to arrange the disks in a 3510 storage array. We have been testing with the 12 disks on the 3510 exported as "nraid" logical devices. We then configured a single ZFS pool on top of this, using two raid-z arrays. We are getting

Hi All, I''d like to ask about whether there is a method to enforce a certain txg commit frequency on ZFS. I''m doing a large amount of video streaming from a storage pool while also slowly continuously writing a constant volume of data to it (using a normal file descriptor, *not* in O_SYNC). When reading volume goes over a certain threshold (and average pool load over ~50%), ZFS

Hi, I'm trying to make samba working with Solaris ZFS Snaphots. Solaris 10 is running on a x64/X86 box which is both Samba (3.4.2) server and Zfs server. I created home/delaye filesystem with home zfs pool. # zpool list NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT home 1.98G 2.60M 1.98G 0% ONLINE - home/delaye 2.47M 1.95G 1.66M /home/delaye

Hi All, Its been a while since I touched zfs. Is the below still the case with zfs and hardware raid array? Do we still need to provide two luns from the hardware raid then zfs mirror those two luns? http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#hardwareraid Thanks, Shawn -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

So I have this dual 16-core Opteron Dell R715 with 128G of RAM attached to a SuperMicro disk enclosure with 45 2TB Toshiba SAS drives (via two LSI 9200 controllers and MPxIO) running OpenIndiana 151a4 and I''m occasionally seeing a storm of xcalls on one of the 32 VCPUs (>100000 xcalls a second). The machine is pretty much idle, only receiving a bunch of multicast video streams and

All, I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable). Thanks, Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org

Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > > I would suggest that you follow my recipe: not check the boot-archive > during a reboot. And then report back. (I''m assuming that that will take > several weeks) > We are back at square one; or, at the subject line. I did a zpool status -v, everything was hunky dory. Next, a power failure, 2 hours later, and this is what zpool status

Hi all, yesterday we had a drive failure on a fc-al jbod with 14 drives. Suddenly the zpool using that jbod stopped to respond to I/O requests and we get tons of the following messages on /var/adm/messages: Sep 3 15:20:10 fb2 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /scsi_vhci/disk at g20000004cfd81b9f (sd52): Sep 3 15:20:10 fb2 SCSI transport failed: reason ''timeout'':

Hi, I''m preparing a personal TPC-H benchmark. The goal is not to measure or optimize the database performance, but to compare ZFS to UFS in similar configurations. At the moment I''m preparing the tests at home. The test setup is as follows: . Solaris snv_37 . 2 x AMD Opteron 252 . 4 GB RAM . 2 x 80 GB ST380817AS . Oracle 10gR2 (small SGA (320m)) The disks also contain the OS

Howdy, I have at several times had issues with consumer grade PC hardware and ZFS not getting along. The problem is not the disks but the fact I dont have ECC and end to end checking on the datapath. What is happening is that random memory errors and bit flips are written out to disk and when read back again ZFS reports it as a checksum failure: pool: myth state: ONLINE status: One or more

hi all Try to learn how UFS root to ZFS root liveUG work. I download the vbox image of s10u8, it come up as UFS root. add a new disks (16GB) create zpool rpool run lucreate -n zfsroot -p rpool run luactivate zfsroot run lustatus it do show zfsroot will be active in next boot init 6 but it come up with UFS root, lustatus show ufsroot active zpool rpool is mounted but not used by boot Is this a

I had some trouble installing a zone on ZFS with S10u4 (bug in the postgres packages) that went away when I used a ZVOL-backed UFS filesystem for the zonepath. I thought I''d push on with the experiment (in the hope Live Upgrade would be able to upgrade such a zone). It''s a bit unwieldy, but everything worked reasonably well - performance isn''t much worse than straight

[originally reported for ZFS on FreeBSD but Pawel Jakub Dawid says this problem also exists on Solaris hence this email.] Summary: on ZFS, overhead for reading a hole seems far worse than actual reading from a disk. Small buffers are used to make this overhead more visible. I ran the following script on both ZFS and UF2 filesystems. [Note that on FreeBSD cat uses a 4k buffer and md5 uses a 1k

I am afraid a search does not get much on this subject, hence this post. Is there a plan for a Nevada build to include zfs root/boot on Sparc architecture? When? This message posted from opensolaris.org

The big problem that I have with non-directio is that buffering delays program execution. When reading/writing files that are many times larger than RAM without directio, it is very apparent that system response drops through the floor- it can take several minutes for an ssh login to prompt for a password. This is true both for UFS and ZFS. Repeat the exercise with directio on UFS and there is no

I''m running Postgresql (v8.1.10) on Solaris 10 (Sparc) from within a non-global zone. I originally had the database "storage" in the non-global zone (e.g. /var/local/pgsql/data on a UFS filesystem) and was getting performance of "X" (e.g. from a TPC-like application: http://www.tpc.org). I then wanted to try relocating the database storage from the zone (UFS

Hi, I've recently moved our student fileserver from a Solaris 10 server that was using UFS filesytems to a new Sun Cluster. As part of the move I decided to employ ZFS for the filesystem so that I could take advantage of some of ZFS's features. However, it now seems that windows does not report the amount of space that the user is actually using, or the amount of quota left,

Hi All ; One of our customer is suffered from FS being corrupted after an unattanded shutdonw due to power problem. They want to switch to ZFS. >From what I read on, ZFS will most probably not be corrupted from the same event. But I am not sure how will Oracle be affected from a sudden power outage when placed over ZFS ? Any comments ? PS: I am aware of UPS''s and