@LilAng said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@LilAng said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

i just read that whole thread....

The ZFS cock juggling one?

LMAO!!!!!!!! yes. i actually read every single comment. i got some second hand cringe from some of the things said there.
Not gonna lie. some of that stuff triggered me.

@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@dbeato said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@EddieJennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

https://mangolassi.it/users?section=sort-reputation&page=18

I win! I'm on the first page

Ignoring @scottalanmiller as he doens't play fair

I'm not sure how I am the top by rep.

Well, you get rep by upvotes, so you have posted things that get you there.

I'm still in the top ten... just dropped a place or two... I need to post more.

Well, that post really helped out my reputation score today. Gotta look on the bright side.

@donaldlandru Should've used stronger password and 2fa. Time to break out the backups.

@scottalanmiller You'll want to double check you're article on the cult of ZFS, that was a direct quote. I know it's just a typo.

@xrobau said in Changes at Sangoma:

@travisdh1 You still seem to be hung up on the RAID concept of parity. Truly, honestly, that's not how ZFS works. I cross my heart. It works on copies of data. Literal, exact, copies of the data.

Unfortunately, THIS is where the 'ZFS Can't expand a volume' problem comes into play. Because the location of those copies (on the physical spindles) is made by hashing the size and number of volumes in a zraid (I'm kinda simplifying here, but work with me!)

So if a ZRAID2 has 5 spindles, that means that a copy of block 1 of the zpool will be placed on spindle 1 at sector 10, 3 at sector 100 and spindle 5 at sector 500. The location of that doesn't need to be looked up, because it can be calculated.

The 'expansion' problem comes about because if you add another spindle to that ZRAID2, suddenly block 1 would be on spindle 1 at sector 10, spindle 3 at sector 500 and spindle 6 at sector 1000 (or whatever). So the location of the data would be wrong, and everything falls apart.

(Now, this is actually wrong, and there IS an index, but, that's advanced stuff, and this is good enough for you to get the idea).

Does that make more sense?

Not at all, because you are describing RAID 5/6. There is nothing special or different here.

@xrobau said in Changes at Sangoma:

@travisdh1 I don't know what a RAID Lever is? Something to do with tuning?

Geesh, you're so bad as Scott.

@xrobau said in Changes at Sangoma:

@travisdh1 maybe they mean RAID LEVELS? Not levers? Which is correct. ZRAIDx means there are X ADDITIONAL copies of the data. ZRAID2 has 3 copies of each chunk, spread across physical devices. The "X" number is how many HDDs the zraid can tolerate failing.

The difference to RAID6 (for example) is that RAID6 has one copy of the data, but it's possible to figure out what the data was by looking at what remains and using the parity data to figure out what was on the missing disk(s)

ZFS RAID levers aren't standard (they are very standard)

What is so difficult to understand about this statement?

@xrobau said in Changes at Sangoma:

@travisdh1 exactly! ZFS does not use parity. That seems to be where a bunch of this confusion is coming from.

Traditional RAID uses parity. ZFS uses copies.

FFS, what are you talking about? ZFS can use copies of data, but that's exactly what RAID1/10 is. Almost every reference I've seen on ZFS are with people using parity levels with it. ZFS is not magic, it still must calculate parity.

What you're claiming is that ZFS can do nothing but mirrored drives

@xrobau said in Changes at Sangoma:

• "ZFS Raid Levers aren't standard" - I have no idea what that means.

Neither do the people saying it, but we hear it said all the time.

@xrobau said in Changes at Sangoma:

So, as a Solaris administrator from way back, let's go through a couple of the misapprehensions about ZFS in that document you linked!

• ZFS Is an Alternative to RAID - Yes. It's a DIFFERENT TYPE of what normal people think of as 'RAID' - or specifically, RAID5/RAID6. They use Parity, and when a disk is broken/missing, it does calculations to figure out the missing data. ZFS uses copies of the data. Striping and Mirroring is obviously the same.

Uhm, what do you mean by "ZFS uses copies of the data" when talking about parity based arrays? This makes zero sense, as no matter what special sauce the array is using, it still must do the parity calculations. Unless it's really running a RAID 1/10 as another layer on arrays.

@Kyle said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Trying to contain Ransomware RYUK @ a soon to be client site.

That's what I was dealing with this week as well. Make sure anything that doesn't seem infected doesn't have another dropper on it.