<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Aaron Toponce</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pthree.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pthree.org</link>
	<description>Linux.  GNU.  Freedom.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:46:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6-beta2-24176</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Poll: Have You Ever Used A Floppy Disk? by Elhana</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2011/05/15/poll-have-you-ever-used-a-floppy-disk/#comment-126348</link>
		<dc:creator>Elhana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=1899#comment-126348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I even loaded stuff on my Z80 from an audio tape.
I also seen punched cards - my uncle has stockpile of them, he still uses them instead of toothpicks :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I even loaded stuff on my Z80 from an audio tape.<br />
I also seen punched cards &#8211; my uncle has stockpile of them, he still uses them instead of toothpicks <img src='http://pthree.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Encrypted ZFS Filesystems On Linux by EGL</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2012/08/21/encrypted-zfs-filesystems-on-linux/#comment-126237</link>
		<dc:creator>EGL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 12:12:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2469#comment-126237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great article! But I&#039;m very curious, as MN, which disadvantages you get when using LUKS below ZFS. As far as I can see, dedup and compression are going to work properly with LUKS as opposed to ecryptfs. What I&#039;m not sure about is are things like 4k sectors and such...

Thank you for clarification!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article! But I&#8217;m very curious, as MN, which disadvantages you get when using LUKS below ZFS. As far as I can see, dedup and compression are going to work properly with LUKS as opposed to ecryptfs. What I&#8217;m not sure about is are things like 4k sectors and such&#8230;</p>
<p>Thank you for clarification!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Two Weeks With The Yubikey by argo</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2012/11/10/two-weeks-with-the-yubikey/#comment-126159</link>
		<dc:creator>argo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 09:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2561#comment-126159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I forgot to mention passpack

https://www.passpack.com/online/#0

stores up to 100 passwords in the free account and supports two-factor authentication both with the yubikey or with your email. Actually I&#039;m evaluating it even if I own much more passwords ( : solved with 2 accounts? 1 for light accounts and the other for accounts dealing with money as for your bank or paypal account? don&#039;t know).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I forgot to mention passpack</p>
<p><a href="https://www.passpack.com/online/#0" rel="nofollow">https://www.passpack.com/online/#0</a></p>
<p>stores up to 100 passwords in the free account and supports two-factor authentication both with the yubikey or with your email. Actually I&#8217;m evaluating it even if I own much more passwords ( : solved with 2 accounts? 1 for light accounts and the other for accounts dealing with money as for your bank or paypal account? don&#8217;t know).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Two Weeks With The Yubikey by argo</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2012/11/10/two-weeks-with-the-yubikey/#comment-126158</link>
		<dc:creator>argo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 08:50:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2561#comment-126158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi aaron,

the keepassdroid solution is attractive, but it depends on how you use it. Keys used to decrypt could be stolen if kept on the phone or even in the cache of the downloads and keyloggers are active on android too (actually don&#039;t know about screenloggers), so the good solution would be implementation of OTP from yubikey (or key pushing) on keepassdroid too...but again you need to keep always the phone and the yubikey always with you.
At the moment I use keepass on my old nokia (java without fast data connection except for the classic GSM), and doubt about moving to a smartphone depends on this too.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi aaron,</p>
<p>the keepassdroid solution is attractive, but it depends on how you use it. Keys used to decrypt could be stolen if kept on the phone or even in the cache of the downloads and keyloggers are active on android too (actually don&#8217;t know about screenloggers), so the good solution would be implementation of OTP from yubikey (or key pushing) on keepassdroid too&#8230;but again you need to keep always the phone and the yubikey always with you.<br />
At the moment I use keepass on my old nokia (java without fast data connection except for the classic GSM), and doubt about moving to a smartphone depends on this too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Gmail- Grrrrr by Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2006/12/07/gmial-grrrrr/#comment-126145</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 06:53:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pthree.org/2006/12/07/gmial-grrrrr/#comment-126145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SHARIK]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SHARIK</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS Administration, Appendix B- Using USB Drives by Aaron Toponce</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2013/05/09/zfs-administration-appendix-b-using-usb-drives/#comment-125925</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Toponce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 14:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=3129#comment-125925</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes and no. First, ZFS is smart enough to know that the OCZ drives are faster than the USB sticks, so it will favor putting data there before using the USB drives. However, Having the USB drives will mean decreased seek latencies in retrieving data that would normally be on platter. So, it certainly doesn&#039;t hurt the pool at all, even if the USB sticks can&#039;t retrieve the data as quickly as the OCZ drives. But you are right that a cached page that once lived on the OCZ drives that now resides on the USB drives, will be accessed slower than before. But it&#039;s still faster than pulling it off platter for small random IO.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes and no. First, ZFS is smart enough to know that the OCZ drives are faster than the USB sticks, so it will favor putting data there before using the USB drives. However, Having the USB drives will mean decreased seek latencies in retrieving data that would normally be on platter. So, it certainly doesn&#8217;t hurt the pool at all, even if the USB sticks can&#8217;t retrieve the data as quickly as the OCZ drives. But you are right that a cached page that once lived on the OCZ drives that now resides on the USB drives, will be accessed slower than before. But it&#8217;s still faster than pulling it off platter for small random IO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS Administration, Appendix B- Using USB Drives by Jeremy Rosengren</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2013/05/09/zfs-administration-appendix-b-using-usb-drives/#comment-125916</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Rosengren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 14:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=3129#comment-125916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Question:  It looks like you already have a couple of OCZ RevoDrives installed... in this particular scenario, do the USB cache devices still provide value?  It does look like they&#039;re being used, does ZFS treat all the disks as the same speed, and if so, couldn&#039;t that hurt performance by having cache data written to devices that are slower than your SSDs?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Question:  It looks like you already have a couple of OCZ RevoDrives installed&#8230; in this particular scenario, do the USB cache devices still provide value?  It does look like they&#8217;re being used, does ZFS treat all the disks as the same speed, and if so, couldn&#8217;t that hurt performance by having cache data written to devices that are slower than your SSDs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS Administration, Part XIV- ZVOLS by Aaron Toponce : ZFS Administration, Appendix B- Using USB Drives</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2012/12/21/zfs-administration-part-xiv-zvols/#comment-125909</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Toponce : ZFS Administration, Appendix B- Using USB Drives</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 12:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2933#comment-125909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] ZVOLs [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] ZVOLs [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS Administration, Part VII- Zpool Properties by Aaron Toponce : ZFS Administration, Appendix B- Using USB Drives</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2012/12/12/zfs-administration-part-vii-zpool-properties/#comment-125908</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Toponce : ZFS Administration, Appendix B- Using USB Drives</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 12:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2632#comment-125908</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Getting and Setting Properties [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Getting and Setting Properties [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux by Aaron Toponce : ZFS Administration, Appendix B- Using USB Drives</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2012/04/17/install-zfs-on-debian-gnulinux/#comment-125907</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Toponce : ZFS Administration, Appendix B- Using USB Drives</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 12:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2357#comment-125907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS Administration, Part XVI- Getting and Setting Properties by Aaron Toponce : Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2013/01/02/zfs-administration-part-xvi-getting-and-setting-properties/#comment-125797</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Toponce : Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 00:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2950#comment-125797</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Getting and Setting Properties [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Getting and Setting Properties [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS Administration, Part VII- Zpool Properties by Aaron Toponce : Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2012/12/12/zfs-administration-part-vii-zpool-properties/#comment-125796</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Toponce : Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 00:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2632#comment-125796</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Getting and Setting Properties [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Getting and Setting Properties [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS Administration, Part I- VDEVs by Dan</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2012/12/04/zfs-administration-part-i-vdevs/#comment-125649</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 12:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2584#comment-125649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for writing this up, definitely helping me get my feet wet with ZFS :-) Slight nitpicking - your comparison with the Linux software RAID includes the creation of the mount point and actually mounting it, which the ZFS pool creation command does not.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for writing this up, definitely helping me get my feet wet with ZFS <img src='http://pthree.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />  Slight nitpicking &#8211; your comparison with the Linux software RAID includes the creation of the mount point and actually mounting it, which the ZFS pool creation command does not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS Administration, Part II- RAIDZ by Veniamin</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2012/12/05/zfs-administration-part-ii-raidz/#comment-125562</link>
		<dc:creator>Veniamin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:54:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=2590#comment-125562</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for articke.
I wonder how RAIDZ will work with two or more parity stripes.
I think that in the case of data is longer than recsize x n_data_disks, raidz slpits it into several writes.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for articke.<br />
I wonder how RAIDZ will work with two or more parity stripes.<br />
I think that in the case of data is longer than recsize x n_data_disks, raidz slpits it into several writes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS Administration, Appendix A- Visualizing The ZFS Intent LOG (ZIL) by patrick domack</title>
		<link>http://pthree.org/2013/04/19/zfs-administration-appendix-a-visualizing-the-zfs-intent-log/#comment-125471</link>
		<dc:creator>patrick domack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:54:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pthree.org/?p=3073#comment-125471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[yes, sync writes are always written twice.
once to the intent log (journal) and once to the pool.

if you have no slog (seperate log/journal), then the journal exists within your pool.
and if your paranoud, ext4 will work this same method by adjusting its options.

i didnt see any talk about the performance issues with using a slog though.

all writes to an slog happen one at a time (queue depth=1 always). so the latency of your writes matter all other performance metrics on you slog device.

if you have multible slog devs you can increase performance, cause each will be used for a different writer, but only multible writers cause async blocks the current one.

while zfs is waiting for the slog, it will group other writes together to create a larger transaction though, so all isnt lost, but you generally are going have to have a lot of writers to gain performance here.

other things to muse over,
zfs never verifies writes to the slog are correct, till it needs them for recovery.
zfs depends on the slog not to lie about it flushing data to disk, or you might as well use async writes instead.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yes, sync writes are always written twice.<br />
once to the intent log (journal) and once to the pool.</p>
<p>if you have no slog (seperate log/journal), then the journal exists within your pool.<br />
and if your paranoud, ext4 will work this same method by adjusting its options.</p>
<p>i didnt see any talk about the performance issues with using a slog though.</p>
<p>all writes to an slog happen one at a time (queue depth=1 always). so the latency of your writes matter all other performance metrics on you slog device.</p>
<p>if you have multible slog devs you can increase performance, cause each will be used for a different writer, but only multible writers cause async blocks the current one.</p>
<p>while zfs is waiting for the slog, it will group other writes together to create a larger transaction though, so all isnt lost, but you generally are going have to have a lot of writers to gain performance here.</p>
<p>other things to muse over,<br />
zfs never verifies writes to the slog are correct, till it needs them for recovery.<br />
zfs depends on the slog not to lie about it flushing data to disk, or you might as well use async writes instead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
