search for: sommerfeld

I''m planning on setting up an NFS server for our ESXi hosts and plan on using a virtualized Solaris or Nexenta host to serve ZFS over NFS. The storage I have available is provided by Equallogic boxes over 10Gbe iSCSI. I am trying to figure out the best way to provide both performance and resiliency given the Equallogic provides the redundancy. Since I am hoping to provide a 2TB

...eded. So here is a multi section email. Core contributors (including the newly added ones), Please vote on individual sections. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Current contributors list: yun,Zhou Yun,20,networking,Networking,2009-02-24 00:32:45 sommerfe,Bill Sommerfeld,20,networking,Networking,2009-02-24 00:32:45 pwernau,Paul Wernau,20,networking,Networking,2009-02-24 00:32:45 mll3k,Michael Lim,20,networking,Networking,2009-02-24 00:32:45 markfen,Mark Fenwick,20,networking,Networking,2009-02-24 00:32:45 krgopi,Rajagopal Kunhappan,20,networking,Networking,2009-02-...

Back in December, there was some discussion here about the Ultra 20''s bios being confused by the EFI labels ZFS uses. After seeing a report about the X2100 exhibiting the same behavior as the Ultra 20, I reproduced the problem and filed: 6407133 X2100 bios intimidated by ZFS-created EFI labels hopefully that bios will get fixed, too. - Bill

Dear R-help list readers, I am fitting a mixed model using the lme function (R V 2.3.1 for Windows). This is an example: dep<-c(25,40,33.33,60,70.83,72,71.43,50,40,53.33,64,54.17,60,53.57) yes<-c(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,0,1,2,3,4,5,6) treat<-c(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) #factor If I now fit a model with random slopes as well as intercepts: model1<-lme(dep~yes,random=yes|treat) R

I had a single spare 500GB HDD and I decided to install a FreeBSD file server in it for learning purposes, and I moved almost all of my data to it. Yesterday, and naturally after no longer having backups of the data in the server, I had a controller failure (SiS 180 (oh, the quality)) and the HDD was considered unplugged. When I noticed a few checksum failures on `zfs status` (including two on

Why does ZFS report such small directory sizes? For example, take a maildir directory with ten entries: total 2385 drwx------ 8 17121 vmail 10 Jun 8 23:50 . drwx--x--x 14 root root 14 May 12 2006 .. drwx------ 5 17121 vmail 5 May 25 18:16 .Trash drwx------ 5 17121 staff 6 Jun 9 00:01 .testing -rw------- 1 17121 staff 0 Jun

This question is concerning ZFS. We have a Sun Fire V890 attached to a EMC disk array. Here''s are plan to incorporate ZFS: On our EMC storage array we will create 3 LUNS. Now how would ZFS be used for the best performance? What I''m trying to ask is if you have 3 LUNS and you want to create a ZFS storage pool, would it be better to have a storage pool per LUN or combine the 3

I am sponsoring this fasttrack for John Levon. It is set to expire on 3/14/2007. Note that this is an externally visible case. liane --- SMF services for Xen 1. Introduction This case introduces the SMF services used by a Solaris-based domain 0 when running on Xen, or a Xen-compatible hypervisor. All of these services only run on domain 0 when booted under Xen virtualisation.

1. I have a 4x18GB drive setup as RAIDZ. Now when thinking about it in terms of RAID5 I would expect to get (4-1)x18 worth of drive space, but DF -h shows 4x18. Is this a bug or do I not understand? 2. Once again thinking in RAID5 terms if I have 4X18GB and 12X9GB drives and I want to make a RAIDZ of all of them I would expect the 18GB to be treated at 9GB so the RAIDZ would be 16X9GB. Is

Hi. I''d like to request a feature be added to zfs. Currently, on SAN attached disk, zpool shows up with a big WWN for the disk. If ZFS (or the zpool command, in particular) had a text field for arbitrary information, it would be possible to add something that would indicate what LUN on what array the disk in question might be. This would make troubleshooting and general

Is it possible to convert/upgrade a file system that is currently under the control of Solaris Volume Manager to ZFS? Thanks This message posted from opensolaris.org

I''m seeing some pretty pitiful performance using ZFS on a NFS server, with a ZFS volume exported (only with rw=host.foo.com,root=host.foo.com opts) and mounted on a Linux host running kernel 2.4.31. This linux kernel I''m working with is limited in that I can only do NFSv2 mounts... irregardless of that aspect, I''m sure something''s amiss. I mounted the zfs-based

ZFS fans, I''m preparing some analyses on RAS for large JBOD systems such as the Sun Fire X4500 (aka Thumper). Since there are zillions of possible permutations, I need to limit the analyses to some common or desirable scenarios. Naturally, I''d like your opinions. I''ve already got a few scenarios in analysis, and I don''t want to spoil the brain storming, so

Hi all! I''ve decided to take the "big jump" and build a ZFS home filer (although it might also do "other work" like caching DNS, mail, usenet, bittorent and so forth). YAY! I wonder if anyone can shed some light on how long a pool scrub would take on a fairly decent rig. These are the specs as-ordered: Asus P5Q-EM mainboard Core2 Quad 2.83 GHZ 8GB DDR2/80 OS: 2 x

It wouldn''t be proper to start my first post here without congratulations and thanks to the ZFS team for such an impressive piece of work. Anyway, on to my query. I''ve been trying out ZFS, with a particular focus in reducing latency in a specific application. This application has a fair amount of random writing going on in the background (which, of course, ZFS will make

I''m currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba. I have samba configured and integrated into our local active directory, with ACL mapping working. I''m a little confused as to the behavior of the ZFS ACL though. on a brand-new filesystem, touching a file results in: -rw-r--r-- 1 root

Hi, I was discussing the common practice of disk eradication used by many firms for security. I was thinking this may be a useful feature of ZFS to have an option to eradicate data as its removed, meaning after the last reference/snapshot is done and a block is freed, then write the eradication patterns back to the removed blocks. By any chance, has this been discussed or considered before?

As mentioned last night, we''ve been reviewing a proposal for hot spare support in ZFS. Below you can find a current draft of the proposed interfaces. This has not yet been submitted for ARC review, but comments are welcome. Note that this does not include any enhanced FMA diagnosis to determine when a device is "faulted". This will come in a follow-on project, of which some

This is my first post here, and i hope it is ok that i posted in this thread. I have been doing a bit of reading on the solaris platforms, and seem to be inclined to try out the open solaris os or solaris 10. My only worry is that my lack of knowledge with the command line may make this difficult regarding trouble shooting. It seems fairly straighforward creating zpools etc, but maybe nexenta is

Anthony Scarpino wrote (elsewhere): > While writing up the man page.. I thought of a few things that I was > wondering if you considered.. > > Can an encrypted dataset (keytype=dataset) reside in a non-encrypted (no > kek defined) pool? I can see a case for and against allowing this when considering it purely at the feature level as users/admins see things. The admin can