UFS logging VS Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice "UFS logging"

UFS logging VS Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice "UFS logging"

Post by Shaw » Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:13:19



Does anyone know the difference from mounting a UFS file system with
the options "logging" and using Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice
to do UFS logging.

Is it the same, or using DiskSuite more reliable?   I've been using
DiskSuite (ufs logging) for a few years now and I've never have a
problem with any file system from a hard crash or "power off".  I
noticed the other day when glancing over the mount_ufs man page that
there was a "logging" options that says the same stuff of what a trans
metadevice does, but was curious if it is proven to have the same
reliability.

Any info is appreciated.

-- Shawn

 
 
 

UFS logging VS Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice "UFS logging"

Post by John Riddoc » Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:45:29



Quote:> Does anyone know the difference from mounting a UFS file system with
> the options "logging" and using Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice
> to do UFS logging.

> Is it the same, or using DiskSuite more reliable?   I've been using
> DiskSuite (ufs logging) for a few years now and I've never have a
> problem with any file system from a hard crash or "power off".  I
> noticed the other day when glancing over the mount_ufs man page that
> there was a "logging" options that says the same stuff of what a trans
> metadevice does, but was curious if it is proven to have the same
> reliability.

FWIW, I've enabled logging on _all_ our Solaris 7/8 machines, including
our main file server with a ~70GB RAID-5 volume.  There have been
occassions where that server has had a hard reboot, and it came up
without requiring to run fsck on any volumes.

Logging is almost always a must have, as it saves so much time in
rebooting.  It's also been known to speed up filesystem access.

I'm not sure the difference between trans and UFS logging, though; I'm
sure someone more knowledgable in the peculiarities of the two will
help you, though :)  What I do remember is that the UFS logging came
indirectly from stuff like Veritas Volume manager which has had this
capability for while.

--

http://www.scms.rgu.ac.uk/staff/jr/
"I'd change the world but God won't give me the source code" - Anonymous

 
 
 

UFS logging VS Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice "UFS logging"

Post by dmuhr.. » Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:29:00


I can't make any comparisons with DiskSuite; don't use it because I'm
only using 1 HDD.  But the logging mount option has saved my file system
after 2 hard crashes.



Quote:> Does anyone know the difference from mounting a UFS file system with
> the options "logging" and using Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice
> to do UFS logging.

> Is it the same, or using DiskSuite more reliable?   I've been using
> DiskSuite (ufs logging) for a few years now and I've never have a
> problem with any file system from a hard crash or "power off".  I
> noticed the other day when glancing over the mount_ufs man page that
> there was a "logging" options that says the same stuff of what a trans
> metadevice does, but was curious if it is proven to have the same
> reliability.

> Any info is appreciated.

> -- Shawn

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
 
 
 

UFS logging VS Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice "UFS logging"

Post by Raf LaPiet » Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:37:05


The ufs logging is the same technology as the SDS meta trans logging. SDS
logging is now primarily used for performance reasons, when you do not want
to log to the same disk.

-Raf



>Does anyone know the difference from mounting a UFS file system with
>the options "logging" and using Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice
>to do UFS logging.

>Is it the same, or using DiskSuite more reliable?   I've been using
>DiskSuite (ufs logging) for a few years now and I've never have a
>problem with any file system from a hard crash or "power off".  I
>noticed the other day when glancing over the mount_ufs man page that
>there was a "logging" options that says the same stuff of what a trans
>metadevice does, but was curious if it is proven to have the same
>reliability.

>Any info is appreciated.

>-- Shawn

 
 
 

UFS logging VS Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice "UFS logging"

Post by Thomas Tornblo » Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:03:30



> Does anyone know the difference from mounting a UFS file system with
> the options "logging" and using Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice
> to do UFS logging.

> Is it the same, or using DiskSuite more reliable?   I've been using
> DiskSuite (ufs logging) for a few years now and I've never have a
> problem with any file system from a hard crash or "power off".  I
> noticed the other day when glancing over the mount_ufs man page that
> there was a "logging" options that says the same stuff of what a trans
> metadevice does, but was curious if it is proven to have the same
> reliability.

> Any info is appreciated.

> -- Shawn

It is basically the same code.

ufs logging was "stolen" from SDS.

--


Sun Microsystems AB      Fax: +46 8 631 1102

 
 
 

UFS logging VS Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice "UFS logging"

Post by unixwee.. » Wed, 07 Feb 2001 09:53:26




Quote:> Does anyone know the difference from mounting a UFS file system with
> the options "logging" and using Solstice DiskSuite's Trans metadevice
> to do UFS logging.

> Is it the same, or using DiskSuite more reliable?   I've been using
> DiskSuite (ufs logging) for a few years now and I've never have a
> problem with any file system from a hard crash or "power off".  I
> noticed the other day when glancing over the mount_ufs man page that
> there was a "logging" options that says the same stuff of what a trans
> metadevice does, but was curious if it is proven to have the same
> reliability.

My impression is that they are identical except for the new feature of
being able to allocate log space from the data device rather than
defining it manually.  I suppose you could get a bit better performance
with the trans device since you can move the log onto a faster volume,
but I suspect it's not worth the time it takes to maintain it.  With
VXVM, I found the log slices tended to be a bottleneck with lots of
writes.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

 
 
 

1. "ufs logging" versus "vxfs"

What we are doing :

on some file systems we have a lot of disk activity: creating, moving and
removing files. This action is done simulteanously by more than one process.
We are running under Solaris 7 and everything is ok that way under normal
operation. Unfortunately when the server is stopped abruptly (hardware
failure, power failure, anything else, ...) we discovered that some files
where mixed that is that one file could end with the lines that should
obviously be in an other one.

We thought that "ufs + logging" was safer than "ufs" but it is not at all
and we are very dispointed about it. Why are the files mixed after the
server has recovered. We accept them to be truncated or even to disapear but
the fact that they are mixed seems to be a problem with the file system
structure. It is the same under Solaris 8.

After some tests, "vxfs" seems to work better but it still mixes files under
heavy load. Is it true that this type of file system is not recommended if
it moves a lot (many creations and file removals) ?

We made tests under an i686 running Suse 6.4 with a "reiserfs" file system
type which is some sort of "logging" and no problem was ever produced. Isn't
Sun Solaris 7 or 8 capable of the same performance ?

--

Le site originel - The site of origins :
http://jeanmarc.launois.free.fr
Visite le, si tu l'oses... - Visit it, if you dare...

2. Redhat + 3com + Sb32 = Trouble

3. about UFS logging and trans metadevices

4. Ex-AIX Techie Needs Some Advice

5. UFS logging on DiskSuite metadevices

6. Slackware/Dell problems

7. logging - "secure" logs don't tell me who is logging in?

8. HELP! Slackware 1.3.20 down!

9. UFS logging vs meta device logging

10. "Logging" or "Log structured" file systems with news spool.

11. What is difference between "ufs" and "vxfs" ?

12. userdel : "user" is in use, but "user" isn't logged

13. Using DiskSuite ufs logging on Volume Manager logical volumes?