similar to: Disk array format for CentOS virtual host

Hello all, I'm having quite an interesting time getting up to speed with KVM/QEMU and the various ways of creating virtual Guest VMs. But disk I/O performance remains a bit of a question mark for me. I'm looking for suggestions and opinions .... This new machine has tons of disk space, lots of CPU cores and loads of RAM, so those are not issues. I currently have several software

On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? > > There is no licensing issue, but

I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? Although btrfs is making progress, ZFS is far more mature, has a few more stable features (especially Raid-z3) and has worked flawlessly for me on CentOS-6 and Scientific Linux-6.

Hello All, Just a short note to add my vote for a HUGE round of applause to the CentOS team for their untiring efforts in getting releases out the door. I've just upgraded several servers to 5.6 and it all "just works". None of the team's work is easy to accomplish, especially when less-than-useful complaints keep popping up from thoughtless users who don't appreciate

On 12/18/2013, 04:00 , lists at benjamindsmith.com wrote: > I may be being presumptuous, and if so, I apologize in advance... > > It sounds to me like you might consider a disk-to-disk backup solution. > I could suggest dirvish, BackupPC, or our own home-rolled rsync-based > solution that works rather well:http://www.effortlessis.com/backupbuddy/ > > Note that with these

Once upon a time, Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> said: > I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what > is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with > the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, > political, etc? Licensing. Sun chose an Open Source license that is incompatible with the GPLv2 as used by the

Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is > the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the > ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource enemies that spread a fairy tale about an alleged licensing

Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > > > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is > >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the > >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a

Hallo, linux-btrfs, I''m working with btrfs for some days. btrfs-progs-20101101, kernel 2.6.35.8 (both self compiled). First step: mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdd1 mount /dev/sdd1 /srv/MM for a 2 TByte partition, worked well. Copying about 1,5 TByte data to this partition worked well. Second step: btrfs device add /dev/sdc1 /srv/MM btrfs filesystem balance

On 06/01/2015 07:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >>>> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than

Hi folks, I have to migrate a set of iscsi backstores to a new target via network. To reduce downtime I would like to mirror the active volumes first, next stop the initators, and then do a final incremental sync. The backstores have a size between 256 GByte and 1 TByte each. In toto its about 8 TByte. Of course I have found the --copy-devices patch, but I wonder if this works as expected? Is

Hello, all. 1) ACE does not work for me I am in a voip project using Speex, failed to have hte Speex ACE work. here is how I initialize it: /** * Configurations : * #define BITS_PER_SAMPLE (16) * #define SAMPLE_RATE (8000) * #define CHANNEL_NB (1) * #define DURATION (20) * SPEEX_MODEID_NB */ _eco_state = speex_echo_state_init(_encframe_size, 10*_encframe_size); speex_echo_ctl(_eco_state,

Hi again, thanks for all the replies to the all in one with ESXi, it was most illuminating. I will use this setup at my dayjob. Now for a slight variation on a theme: N40L with ESXi with raw drive passthrough, with OpenIndiana/napp-it NFS or iSCSI export of underlying devices. This particular setup is for a home VMWare lab, using spare hardware parts I have around. I''m trying to do

Hello list members, In CentOS-5.5 I'm trying to achieve static assignment of SCSI device names for a bunch of RAID-60 drives on a Supermicro motherboard. The "scsi_id" command identifies all drives ok. The board has one SATA controller and three SAS/SATA controllers ... standard on-board ICH-10 ATA channels, an on-board LSI SAS/SATA controller, and two add-on SAS/SATA

Hi, after a flaky 8-drive Linux RAID10 just shredded about 2 TByte worth of my data at home (conveniently just before I could make a backup) I''ve decided to both go full redundancy as well as all zfs at home. A couple questions: is there a way to make WD20EFRX (2 TByte, 4k sectors) and WD200FYPS (4k internally, reported as 512 Bytes?) work well together on a current OpenIndiana? Which

I currently am getting good speeds out of my existing system (8x 2TB in a RAIDZ2 exported over fibre channel) but there''s no such thing as too much speed, and these other two drive bays are just begging for drives in them.... If I go to 10x 2TB in a RAIDZ3, will the extra spindles increase speed, or will the extra parity writes reduce speed, or will the two factors offset and leave things

Hello, i have to backup (tape library) a mailsystem with about 300.000 Mailboxes on 2 backends. Summary of all mailboxes are 2 TByte. The mailstore is mdbox. Is it save to do a simple filesystem backup (full and incremental) with backupsoftware? What is the prefered strategy to do a backup for desaster recovery (mailsystem crash) and restoring single usermailboxes? Regards, Claus

Hello list members, My adventure into udev rules has taken an interesting turn. I did discover a stupid error in the way I was attempting to assign static disk device names on CentOS-5.5, so that's out of the way. But in the process of exploring, I installed a trial copy of RHEL-6 on the new machine to see if anything had changed (since I intend this box to run CentOS-6 anyway). Lots

Having > 10 TByte mailstore filesystem-checks takes too much time. At the moment we have four different partitions, but I don't like to set symlinks or LDAP-flags to sort customers and their domains to there individual mount-point. I'd like to work with mdbox:/mail/%d/%n to calculate the path automatically. How do you handle >> 10 TB mailstore? I'm very interested in the

My CentOS4 machine died (CPU cooler failure, causing CPU to die). In this machine I had 5 Tbyte disks in a RAID5, and LVM structures on that. Now I've moved those 5 disks onto a CentOS5 machine and the RAID array is being rebuilt. However the LVM structures weren't detected at boot time. I was able to "vgscan" and 'vgchange -a y' to bring the volume online and then