similar to: Zpool scrub in cron hangs u3/u4 server, stumps tech support.

I understand that currently, at least under Solaris 10u6, it is not possible to jumpstart a new system with a zfs root using a flash archive as a source. Can anyone comment as to whether this restriction will pass in the near term, or if this is a while out (6+ months) before this will be possible? Thanks, Jerry

Hello, We have a new Thor here with 24TB of disk in (first of many, hopefully). We are trying to determine the bext practices with respect to file system management and sizing. Previously, we have tried to keep each file system to a max size of 500GB to make sure we could fit it all on a single tape, and to minimise restore times and impact should we experience some kind of volume

Under Solaris 10 on a 4 core Sun Ultra 40 with 20GB RAM, I am setting up a Sun StorageTek 2540 with 12 300GB 15K RPM SAS drives and connected via load-shared 4Gbit FC links. This week I have tried many different configurations, using firmware managed RAID, ZFS managed RAID, and with the controller cache enabled or disabled. My objective is to obtain the best single-file write performance.

hi all I have a server running svn_131 and the scrub is very slow. I have a cron job for starting it every week and now it''s been running for a while, and it''s very, very slow scrub: scrub in progress for 40h41m, 12.56% done, 283h14m to go The configuration is listed below, consisting of three raidz2 groups with seven 2TB drives each. The root fs is on a pair of X25M (gen 1)

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS

Hi! I wonder if the following scenario works: I have a mac mini running as an OSOL box. The OS is installed on the internal hard drive on the vdrive rpool. On rpool there is no redundancy. If I add an external block device (USB / Firewire) to rpool to mirror the internal hard drive and if the internal hard drive fails, can I reboot the system with the detached internal drive but with the

If there were a ?zfs send? datastream saved someplace, is there a way to verify the integrity of that datastream without doing a ?zfs receive? and occupying all that disk space? I am aware that ?zfs send? is not a backup solution, due to vulnerability of even a single bit error, and lack of granularity, and other reasons. However ... There is an attraction to ?zfs send? as an augmentation to the

Interesting flash technology overview and SSD review here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403 and another review here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-x25-m-SSD,2012.html Regards, -- Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc,Plano,TX al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005

Hi all Is it possible to securely delete a file from a zfs dataset/zpool once it''s been snapshotted, meaning "delete (and perhaps overwrite) all copies of this file"? Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy at karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et element?rt imperativ

I encountered an issue that people using OS-X systems as NFS clients need to be aware of. While not strictly a ZFS issue, it may be encounted most often by ZFS users since ZFS makes it easy to support and export per-user filesystems. The problem I encountered was when using ZFS to create exported per-user filesystems and the OS-X automounter to perform the necessary mount magic. OS-X

Today I updated the firmware on my StorageTek 2540 to the latest recommended version and am seeing radically difference performance when testing with iozone than I did in February of 2008. I am using Solaris 10 U5 with all the latest patches. This is the performance achieved (on a 32GB file) in February last year: KB reclen write rewrite read reread 33554432

Hi all I have a test system with snv134 and 8x2TB drives in RAIDz2 and currently no Zil or L2ARC. I noticed the I/O speed to NFS shares on the testpool drops to something hardly usable while scrubbing the pool. How can I address this? Will adding Zil or L2ARC help? Is it possible to tune down scrub''s priority somehow? Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy at

We have a virtualized environment of T-Series where each host has either zones or LDoms. All of the virtual systems will have their own dedicated storage on ZFS (and some may also get raw LUNs). All the SAN storage is delivered in fixed sized 33GB LUNs. The question I have to the community is whether it would be better to have a pool per virtual system, or create a large pool and carve out ZFS

My understanding is that if I "zfs set checksum=<different>" to change the algorithm that this will change the checksum algorithm for all FUTURE data blocks written, but does not in any way change the checksum for previously written data blocks. I need to corroborate this understanding. Could someone please point me to a document that states this? I have searched and searched

Hello all... I''m seeing this behaviour in an old build (89), and i just want to hear from you if there is some known bug about it. I''m aware of the "picket fencing" problem, and that ZFS is not choosing right if write to slog is better or not (thinking if we have a better throughput from disks). But i did not find anything about 100% slog activity (~115MB/s) blocks

This is probably unreproducible, but I just got a panic whilst scrubbing a simple mirrored pool on scxe snv124. Evidently on of the disks went offline for some reason and shortly thereafter the panic happened. I have the dump and the /var/adm/messages containing the trace. Is there any point in submitting a bug report? The panic starts with: Jan 19 13:27:13 host6

Hi, I don''t know if it''s already been discussed here, but while thinking about using the OCZ Vertex 2 Pro SSD (which according to spec page has supercaps built in) as a shared slog and L2ARC device it stroke me that this might not be a such a good idea. Because this SSD is MLC based, write cycles are an issue here, though I can''t find any number in their spec. Why do I

I have a Solaris 10 U5 system massively patched so that it supports ZFS pool version 15 (similar to U8, kernel Generic_141445-09), live upgrade components have been updated to Solaris 10 U8 versions from the DVD, and GRUB has been updated to support redundant menus across the UFS boot environments. I have studied the Solaris 10 Live Upgrade manual (821-0438) and am unable to find any

Hi, I just installed 2009.06 and found that compression isn''t enabled by default when filesystems are created. Does is make sense to have an RFE open for this? (I''ll open one tonight if need be.) We keep telling people to turn on compression. Are there any situations where turning on compression doesn''t make sense, like rpool/swap? what about rpool/dump? Thanks, ~~sa

I currently have a 7x1.5tb raidz1. I want to add "phase 2" which is another 7x1.5tb raidz1 Can I add the second phase to the first phase and basically have two raid5''s striped (in raid terms?) Yes, I probably should upgrade the zpool format too. Currently running snv_104. Also should upgrade to 110. If that is possible, would anyone happen to have the simple command lines to