[OpenIndiana-discuss] Using cfgadm to switch harddisk LEDs / 2nd try
Hi there, >I suspect we're talking about a slightly different question. >All I actually do, and it's very simple, is use > >cfgadm -c unconfigure > >which turns on the ready-to-remove LED. *ouch* seems I have expected too much magic. Thanks for putting me on the right track. ;-) Cheers Stefan. Acando GmbH, Millerntorplatz 1, 20359 Hamburg, Germany | Geschäftsführer: Guido Ahle | Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 76048 | Ust.Ident-Nr.:DE208833022 ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Bug or feature in SMF? "svcadm restart" vs "disable+enable"
On 2013-11-20 05:15, Gary Mills wrote: I'm still trying to get a picture of what you are doing. My understanding is that a local zone can only be started or stopped from the global zone, with the `zoneadm' command, and that the svc:/system/zones:default service takes care of starting and stopping local zones when the global zone starts up or shuts down. Oh, I see now. We are indeed talking about different things :) My fault, I guess: I did not reference that as my example I was basing off my recent thread "Local zones as SMF service instances", more here: http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/Zones+as+SMF+services Also, for the sake of THIS discussion, "SMFized" zones are just an example of a service which starts and stops long enough for the discrepancy between "svcadm restart" and "svcadm disable -s; svcadm enable" to be visible. Thanks, //Jim ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] zpool replace says the disk has a different sector alignment
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 at 6:57pm, Timothy Coalson wrote: Is it possible to reflash the controller to the older firmware that reported them as 512? Not the first thing I'd want to try, but... Yeah, I'm hopeful that there was something beneficial in that update besides the pain that I'm now feeling. (Of course, it would have been a good thing if I had read the notes about what the update was going to do first -- but hindsight is usually perfect). One of my co-workers suggested that since this pool is made up of 4 11-disk RAIDZ2's and we are using less than half the entire pool size - that perhaps we can shrink the pool and create a new pool to move the data to, then add the other half into the new pool. I'm starting to do more reading, but while it sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure how or if it would be possible. Found one post I half-remembered over on illumos zfs that says the sd driver doesn't allow that: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182191/entry/19:299/20130326114258:D38D379E-962B-11E2-AF17-BE9C6E434AE2/ Well, that is a real bummer - but I do understand why a programmer would not want to insert that kind of complexity (not to mention the performance penalty of a bad implementation) into the sd driver. Thank you for the help! Frank ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] zpool replace says the disk has a different sector alignment
On 2013-11-20 12:48, Frank Swasey wrote: One of my co-workers suggested that since this pool is made up of 4 11-disk RAIDZ2's and we are using less than half the entire pool size - that perhaps we can shrink the pool and create a new pool to move the data to, then add the other half into the new pool. I'm starting to do more reading, but while it sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure how or if it would be possible. Unfortunately, no - ZFS does not currently support reduction of redundancy nor reduction of pool size - pools can only grow. At most, you might be able to "catastrophically" remove one of the parity disks from each set - giving you 4 available disks to make a new pool (and later grow it), but likely you should not do that (puts your main pool at risk, and will be too small anyway). //Jim ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] zpool replace says the disk has a different sector alignment
Today at 1:16pm, Jim Klimov wrote: On 2013-11-20 12:48, Frank Swasey wrote: One of my co-workers suggested that since this pool is made up of 4 11-disk RAIDZ2's and we are using less than half the entire pool size - that perhaps we can shrink the pool and create a new pool to move the data to, then add the other half into the new pool. I'm starting to do more reading, but while it sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure how or if it would be possible. Unfortunately, no - ZFS does not currently support reduction of redundancy nor reduction of pool size - pools can only grow. Thank you. That confirms what I was suspecting. At most, you might be able to "catastrophically" remove one of the parity disks from each set - giving you 4 available disks to make a new pool (and later grow it), but likely you should not do that (puts your main pool at risk, and will be too small anyway). Yeah... Don't want to go there. So, time to search for a 70TB fix ;) Thanks everyone. -- Frank Swasey| http://www.uvm.edu/~fcs Sr Systems Administrator| Always remember: You are UNIQUE, University of Vermont |just like everyone else. "I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 10GigE vs Infiniband vs SCSI Target ...
No responses Anybody? > -Original Message- > From: Edward Ned Harvey (openindiana) > [mailto:openindi...@nedharvey.com] > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 7:35 AM > To: 'openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org' > Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 10GigE vs Infiniband vs SCSI Target ... > > ZFS is great to manage backend storage in a SAN environment. So then > you're likely to use 10GigE, or Infiniband as the transport... > > I only recently discovered SAS SFF-8088. Gives you 4x 6Gbit buses yielding 24 > Gbit with very low overhead, low cost. A lot of performance for the buck. > > I also recently discovered Linux has something called SCST, a driver of sorts, > that turns some linux HBA into a scsi target. Does openindiana have > something similar? It would sure beat the pants off 10GigE, and while > Infiniband would still be faster, it would be very useful to do the scsi > target > thing for smaller systems... > ___ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 10GigE vs Infiniband vs SCSI Target ...
Sorry, been meaning to respond, but then it slipped my mind. SAS is a viable COMSTAR target and there even was a SAS target driver for some LSI 1068-based chips in the old 2009-era OpenSolaris days, but ultimately that didn't lead anywhere and it fell by the wayside. But I understand your rationale. SAS is switched, it is multi-host, very low latency, high throughput and cheap, cheap, cheap. However, nobody appears to be working on a SAS target driver ATM, as far as I can tell. -- Saso On 11/20/13, 2:11 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (openindiana) wrote: > No responses > Anybody? > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Edward Ned Harvey (openindiana) >> [mailto:openindi...@nedharvey.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 7:35 AM >> To: 'openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org' >> Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 10GigE vs Infiniband vs SCSI Target ... >> >> ZFS is great to manage backend storage in a SAN environment. So then >> you're likely to use 10GigE, or Infiniband as the transport... >> >> I only recently discovered SAS SFF-8088. Gives you 4x 6Gbit buses yielding >> 24 >> Gbit with very low overhead, low cost. A lot of performance for the buck. >> >> I also recently discovered Linux has something called SCST, a driver of >> sorts, >> that turns some linux HBA into a scsi target. Does openindiana have >> something similar? It would sure beat the pants off 10GigE, and while >> Infiniband would still be faster, it would be very useful to do the scsi >> target >> thing for smaller systems... >> ___ >> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list >> OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org >> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > ___ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
[OpenIndiana-discuss] CIFS approach to "valid users" etc.
Hi there, I'm currently configuring CIFS on one of my boxes (Oracle 11.1 this time, but I hope that does not matter) and I'm trying port over shares from Samba. While joining the domain worked (surprisingly) flawlessly, I have a bunch of questions regarding shares: * How can I match the "valid users" parameter, e.g. "valid users = user_a, user_b"? * How can I share directories located under users on a per user basis? With Samba, that's a "path = %H/export"... * How can I set access control on a user basis, e.g. set a share read only for a group, read write for another etc. Unfortunately there is not yet too much documentation available out there... Cheers Stefan Acando GmbH, Millerntorplatz 1, 20359 Hamburg, Germany | Geschäftsführer: Guido Ahle | Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 76048 | Ust.Ident-Nr.:DE208833022 ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] CIFS approach to "valid users" etc.
Hi, i have found (and i am using it at home): http://www.dev-eth0.de/opensolaris-samba-with-anonymous-access/ On 11/20/13 04:32 PM, Stefan Müller-Wilken wrote: Hi there, I'm currently configuring CIFS on one of my boxes (Oracle 11.1 this time, but I hope that does not matter) and I'm trying port over shares from Samba. While joining the domain worked (surprisingly) flawlessly, I have a bunch of questions regarding shares: * How can I match the "valid users" parameter, e.g. "valid users = user_a, user_b"? See dev-eth0 notes (you might need to use idmap) - in use (something similar) * How can I share directories located under users on a per user basis? With Samba, that's a "path = %H/export"... Create separate ZFS FS for each user, set sharesmb options - works just fine - tested * How can I set access control on a user basis, e.g. set a share read only for a group, read write for another etc. idmap user mapping (first you need to define unix groups). - not tested though Unfortunately there is not yet too much documentation available out there... Cheers Stefan Hope that might help. I am using just small part of this, so my guidelines are not very reliable in this matter... Acando GmbH, Millerntorplatz 1, 20359 Hamburg, Germany | Geschäftsführer: Guido Ahle | Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 76048 | Ust.Ident-Nr.:DE208833022 ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss -- Predrag Zečević, Technical Support Analyst, 2e Systems GmbH Telephone: +49 6196 9505 815, Facsimile: +49 6196 9505 894 Mobile:+49 174 3109 288, Skype: predrag.zecevic E-mail:predrag.zece...@2e-systems.com Headquarter: 2e Systems GmbH, Königsteiner Str. 87, 65812 Bad Soden am Taunus, Germany Company registration: Amtsgericht Königstein (Germany), HRB 7303 Managing director:Phil Douglas http://www.2e-systems.com/ - Making your business fly! [***]===--- Some men are so macho they'll get you pregnant just to kill a rabbit. -- Maureen Murphy ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 10GigE vs Infiniband vs SCSI Target ...
On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:35 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (openindiana) wrote: > I also recently discovered Linux has something called SCST, a driver of > sorts, that turns some linux HBA into a scsi target. Does openindiana have > something similar? i think the way the question was phrased about an HBA being a target threw people off. SCST looks like a implementation of COMSTAR functionality. COMSTAR lets most block level to be targets over iSCSI, FCoE, iSER (iSCSI over Infiniband), etc. iSCSI over ether pretty straight forward. There is plenty of Solaris-Solaris documentation available from Oracle. I wrote a blog about Solaris-Windows and Rockwood did one on Solaris-Mac. The Solaris derived implementation of iSER requires that the switch runs a subnet manager, which are commonly available in Infinniband switches. The Linux implementation allows for a back to back set up without a Infinniband switch. does that help? j. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] CIFS approach to "valid users" etc.
On Nov 20, 2013, at 7:48 AM, "Predrag Zecevic [Unix Systems Administrator]" wrote: >> * How can I set access control on a user basis, e.g. set a share read only >> for a group, read write for another etc. > idmap user mapping (first you need to define unix groups). - not tested though you'll still need Unix groups but isn't this a good match for ACLs? http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/821-1448/gbacb.html j. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] zpool replace says the disk has a different sector alignment
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Frank Swasey wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 at 6:57pm, Timothy Coalson wrote: > > Is it possible to reflash the controller to the older firmware that >> reported them as 512? Not the first thing I'd want to try, but... >> > > Yeah, I'm hopeful that there was something beneficial in that update > besides the pain that I'm now feeling. (Of course, it would have been a > good thing if I had read the notes about what the update was going to do > first -- but hindsight is usually perfect). > If you updated firmware without having a symptom you wanted resolved, then moving back to the old firmware without this new "problem" (which is probably a feature rather than a bug) becomes more palatable, as long as you can be sure that going backwards won't break something (for instance, since it is using RAID labels on the disks, did the new firmware change the label to a newer format?). > One of my co-workers suggested that since this pool is made up of 4 > 11-disk RAIDZ2's and we are using less than half the entire pool size - > that perhaps we can shrink the pool and create a new pool to move the data > to, then add the other half into the new pool. I'm starting to do more > reading, but while it sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure how or if it > would be possible. > > > >> Found one post I half-remembered over on illumos zfs that says the sd >> driver doesn't allow that: >> >> http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182191/entry/19:299/ >> 20130326114258:D38D379E-962B-11E2-AF17-BE9C6E434AE2/ >> > > Well, that is a real bummer - but I do understand why a programmer would > not want to insert that kind of complexity (not to mention the performance > penalty of a bad implementation) into the sd driver. > I'm not sure that changing the behavior to do what we want would actually be a problem for the driver - also that post says logical, when apparently it won't let you set it below the reported physical blocksize, I'm thinking that may have been a mistype. The disk should accept IO of the size of the logical blocksize, which is 512 to not break previous usage, so in theory, the sd driver shouldn't have to do the RMW logic if you told it to treat a 512e drive as 512n...maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like an unneccesary limitation, which makes it extra hard to deal with situations that are "suboptimal". Obviously the system can import a pool with ashift=9 configuration on 4k (well, 512e anyway) disks, so at some layer, it works for both reading and writing in exactly the configuration you want on the replacement disk - it just apparently will not let you apply such a suboptimal label to a new disk, even when trying to replace a failed disk. Personally, I think that the zpool command should treat it as a warning that can be overridden with -f (which can already override "in-use" detection, which can actually be destructive rather than just suboptimal), rather than a flat-out error. Making the disk lie to zfs via sd.conf is only desirable because zfs is too stubborn about it. Tim ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] zpool replace says the disk has a different sector alignment
What does: echo ::sd_state | mdb -k | egrep '(^un|_blocksize)' report? In particular does the kernel think the disk parameters for old and new drives are the same? ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 10GigE vs Infiniband vs SCSI Target ...
> From: jason matthews [mailto:ja...@broken.net] > > does that help? Thank you, what I was looking for was: I want to connect the vmware servers to the openindiana server using SAS hardware. Beat the performance of Ether, and not as expensive (or as difficult) as Infiniband. Let the openindiana server present a zvol (or whatever) as a scsi target on the SAS bus, so as far as vmware can tell, there's just a hard disk on the other end of this SAS cable. Vmware would have no idea it was actualy a ZFS volume or anything. I think Saso answered it. "there was a SAS target driver for some LSI 1068-based chips in the old 2009-era OpenSolaris days, but ultimately that didn't lead anywhere and it fell by the wayside." and "nobody appears to be working on a SAS target driver ATM, as far as I can tell." ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] CIFS approach to "valid users" etc.
On 2013-11-20 16:32, Stefan Müller-Wilken wrote: Hi there, I'm currently configuring CIFS on one of my boxes (Oracle 11.1 this time, but I hope that does not matter) and I'm trying port over shares from Samba. While joining the domain worked (surprisingly) flawlessly, I have a bunch of questions regarding shares: * How can I match the "valid users" parameter, e.g. "valid users = user_a, user_b"? * How can I set access control on a user basis, e.g. set a share read only for a group, read write for another etc. These seem like jobs for ACLs - to filesystem objects and to the share. I believe you can manage them from windows explorer, as long as the Solaris server trusts you as an administrator (integration should go as far as to allow SMF control as "windows services" and so on, not only FS management). On the ZFS side, share ACLs can be managed via the virtual pseudo-file $dataset/.zfs/shares/$sharename - you just set your share's ACLs on it > * How can I share directories located under users on a per user > basis? With Samba, that's a "path = %H/export"... I was almost sure this is automatic, but apparently not. The way to share homedirs (invisible generally, seen only by the user himself) is: # cat /etc/smbautohome * /export/home/& Google for more in Oracle Solaris docs ;) http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19120-01/open.solaris/820-2429/6ne1idac2/index.html Unfortunately there is not yet too much documentation available out there... Cheers Stefan Acando GmbH, Millerntorplatz 1, 20359 Hamburg, Germany | Geschäftsführer: Guido Ahle | Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 76048 | Ust.Ident-Nr.:DE208833022 ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss -- ++ || | Климов Евгений, Jim Klimov | | технический директор CTO | | ЗАО "ЦОС и ВТ" JSC COS&HT | || | +7-903-7705859 (cellular) mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru | |CC:ad...@cos.ru,jimkli...@gmail.com | ++ | () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail | | /\- against microsoft attachments | ++ ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Bug 1204 zoneadm cannot create clone of zone from snapshot
On 2013-11-13 02:45, Jim Klimov wrote: Hello all, I've hit and fixed this bug (fix works for me), then found it in the tracker :) Patch attached to the issue https://www.illumos.org/issues/1204 https://www.illumos.org/attachments/1028/ips-clone.patch Does anyone here, by chance, use solaris10 branded zones? The patch below (also attached to bug 1204) is expected to enable cloning of those from the user-specified snapshot as well. However, I don't have the means to test it currently. https://www.illumos.org/attachments/1034/sol10-clone.patch I'd be grateful if someone with a solaris10 zone took a snapshot of it, tested the following scenario(s), and reported if it works or fails: Prepare recursive snapshots for the test: * zfs snapshot -r pool/zones/sol10origin@SNAPNAME Clone of the currently active ZBE dataset's named snapshot: * zoneadm -z sol10clone clone -s SNAPNAME sol10origin * zoneadm -z sol10clone clone -s @SNAPNAME sol10origin * zoneadm -z sol10clone clone -s pool/zones/sol10origin/ROOT/zbe@SNAPNAME sol10origin Cloning of an old ZBE (not one currently active): * zoneadm -z sol10clone clone -s pool/zones/sol10origin/ROOT/zbe-5 sol10origin * zoneadm -z sol10clone clone -s pool/zones/sol10origin/ROOT/zbe-5@SNAPNAME sol10origin Also, the "-X" flag should disable the sys-unconfig steps after the cloning, so the sol10clone would be identical to sol10origin. I hope none of the variants error out :) Thanks and HTH, //Jim Klimov ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
