similar to: compression=on and zpool attach

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

Hi, for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical disk''s ipos. Regards Victor -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hi All, I am looking at ZFS and I get that they call it RAIDZ which is similar to RAID 5, but what about RAID 10? Isn''t a RAID 10 setup better for data protection? So if I have 8 x 1.5tb drives, wouldn''t I: - mirror drive 1 and 5 - mirror drive 2 and 6 - mirror drive 3 and 7 - mirror drive 4 and 8 Then stripe 1,2,3,4 Then stripe 5,6,7,8 How does one do this with ZFS?

Hello everyone, As one of the steps of improving my ZFS home fileserver (snv_134) I wanted to replace a 1TB disk with a newer one of the same vendor/model/size because this new one has 64MB cache vs. 16MB in the previous one. The removed disk will be use for backups, so I thought it''s better off to have a 64MB cache disk in the on-line pool than in the backup set sitting off-line all

Ciao, the rot filesystem of my thumper is a ZFS with a single disk: bash-3.2# zpool status rpool pool: rpool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c0t7d0 AVAIL c1t6d0 AVAIL c1t7d0

I have zpool like that pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz3-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t4d0 ONLINE

Folks, We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server runs on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores to zfs and continue to have checksum errors -- they are corrected but this improves on the ufs inode errors that require system shutdown and fsck. So, I am recommending that we buy small jbods, do raidz2 and let zfs handle the raiding of these boxes. As we need more

Hello, I''m working with someone who replaced a failed 1TB drive (50% utilized), on an X4540 running OS build 134, and I think something must be wrong. Last Tuesday afternoon, zpool status reported: scrub: resilver in progress for 306h0m, 63.87% done, 173h7m to go and a week being 168 hours, that put completion at sometime tomorrow night. However, he just reported zpool status shows:

Given a 1.6TB ZFS Z-Raid consisting 6 disks: And a system that does an extreme amount of small /(<20K) /random reads /(more than twice as many reads as writes) / 1) What performance gains, if any does Z-Raid offer over other RAID or Large filesystem configurations? 2) What is any hindrance is Z-Raid to this configuration, given the complete randomness and size of these accesses? Would

Hi all :) I''ve been wanting to make the switch from XFS over RAID5 to ZFS/RAIDZ2 for some time now, ever since I read about ZFS the first time. Absolutely amazing beast! I''ve built my own little hobby server at home and have a boatload of disks in different sizes that I''ve been using together to build a RAID5 array on Linux using mdadm in two layers; first layer is

The default blocksize is 128K. If you are using mirrors, then each block on disk will be 128K whenever possible. But if you''re using raidzN with a capacity of M disks (M disks useful capacity + N disks redundancy) then the block size on each individual disk will be 128K / M. Right? This is one of the reasons the raidzN resilver code is inefficient. Since you end up waiting for the

Hi, I do have a disk array that is providing striped LUNs to my Solaris box. Hence I''d like to simply concat those LUNs without adding another layer of striping. Is this possibile with ZFS? As far as I understood, if I use zpool create myPool lun-1 lun-2 ... lun-n I will get a RAID0 striping where each data block is split across all "n" LUNs. If that''s

Just tried the first AJAX example in the rails book (p.391-392, the ''word guessing'' thing), and the AJAX partial used seems to render as a full page. I''m not sure whether it''s a) a partial bug b) some interaction between ajax and partials c) a change since the book came out or d) pilot error I''ve checked the errata pages and it''s flagged up

Apologies for the blank message (if it came through). I have heard here and there that there might be in development a plan to make it such that a raid-z can grow its "raid-z''ness" to accommodate a new disk added to it. Example: I have 4Disks in a raid-z[12] configuration. I am uncomfortably low on space, and would like to add a 5th disk. The idea is to pop in disk 5 and have

Hi, are there currently any plans to make an iSCSI target created by setting shareiscsi=on on a zvol bindable to a single interface (setting tpgt or acls)? I can cobble something together with ipfilter, but that doesn''t give me enough granularity to say something like: ''host a can see target 1, host c can see targets 2-9'', etc. Also, am I right in thinking without

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

I didn''t find any clear answer in the documentation, so here it goes: I''ve got a 4-device RAIDZ array in a pool. I then add another RAIDZ array to the pool. If one of the arrays fails, would all the data on the array be lost, or would it be like disc spanning, and only the data on the failed array be lost? Thanks in advance. This message posted from opensolaris.org

I skimmed the archives and found a thread from July earlier this year about RAIDZ expansion. Not adding more RAIDZ stripes to a pool, but adding more drives to the stripe itself. I''m wondering if an RFE has been submitted for this and if any progress has been made, or is expected? I find myself out of space on my current RAID5 setup and would love to flip over to a ZFS raidz2 solution

"Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?" That''s a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula that I have lately. Reading up on theory of RAID5, I grasped the idea of the write hole (where one of the sectors of the stripe, such as the parity data, doesn''t get written - leading to invalid data upon read). In general, I think the same applies to bitrot of

Hi, i''m new to the list so please bare with me. This isn''t an OpenSolaris related problem but i hope it''s still the right list to post to. I''m on the way to move a backup server to using zfs based storage, but i don''t want to spend too much drives to parity (the 16 drives are attached to a 3ware raid controller so i could also just use raid6 there). I