$zfs create www/lhm
cannot create 'www/lhm': permission denied
How to do this or when can do this?
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:13:21PM +0800, lhmwzy wrote:
> $zfs create www/lhm
> cannot create 'www/lhm': permission denied
>
> How to do this or when can do this?
Creating a filesystem is something that can only be done by root. I'm
not sure what gave you the impression non-root users can do thi
> Creating a filesystem is something that can only be done by root. I'm
> not sure what gave you the impression non-root users can do this...?
He probably though that because it's possible in the current Solaris
implementation of ZFS:
http://blogs.sun.com/marks/entry/zfs_delegated_administration
Tks very much for your reply.
I'm very sorry for the last mail,I didn't see the CC is empty,I'm not
deliberately.
2008/10/22 Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 06:54:49PM +0800, lhmwzy wrote:
>> hmm...
>> I transfer data to a remote machine use zfs.
>> for example:
>>
Yes,that's is what I want to say.
In other word is the command "zfs allow" and "zfs unallow"
I think it is not "Support chflags(2)" which is described in at the bottom
of http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS
2008/10/22 Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Creating a filesystem is something that can only be
Hi
While we are on the topic, I had a brief but happy encounter with ZFS
while dump was broken on UFS2. Is there any indication as to when this
would be suitable for a production environment?
Some of the tools build in to ZFS are very useful...
Regards
--
David Peall :: IT Manager
But what is Jeremy Chadwick said is also a good solution for my problem.
Tks Jeremy Chadwick again.
2008/10/22 lhmwzy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes,that's is what I want to say.
> In other word is the command "zfs allow" and "zfs unallow"
> I think it is not "Support chflags(2)" which is described in
I think the time is when FB8.0 out.
2008/10/22 David Peall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi
>
>
>
> While we are on the topic, I had a brief but happy encounter with ZFS
> while dump was broken on UFS2. Is there any indication as to when this
> would be suitable for a production environment?
>
>
>
> So
> Yes,that's is what I want to say.
> In other word is the command "zfs allow" and "zfs unallow"
> I think it is not "Support chflags(2)" which is described in at the bottom
> of http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS
Sorry, my unclear use of english! I didn't mean the last item, I meant
that it was near th
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:29 PM, pluknet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/21 Eduardo Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Is there another way to check if a certain interface supports polling,
>> other than reading polling(4)? I would like to have a script to check
>> it, issuing something like
>>
>>
First we create a pool name www:
zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
Then replace da6 with a new disk.
when reboot the box,panic when booting:
ZFS:vdev failure,zpool=ww type=vdev.bad_label
painc:solaris
assert:vdev_config_sync(rvd,txg)==0,file:/usr/src/sys/modules/zfs/../../cddl/contrib/oen
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:33:44PM +0800, lhmwzy wrote:
> First we create a pool name www:
> zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
Um, this isn't a RAID - this is a simple concatination of disks. I think
what you meant to do was:
zpool create www raidz da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
Otherwise, you'l
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:09:31PM -0200, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:29 PM, pluknet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2008/10/21 Eduardo Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> Is there another way to check if a certain interface supports polling,
> >> other than reading polling(4)? I wo
YES.
zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
should be:
zpool create www raidz da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6
sorry for my mistake.
I redo it again.
All things go damn WELL.
I can't tell what's wrong now.
2008/10/22 Rink Springer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:33:44PM +0800, lhmwzy
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:12:28AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > # ifconfig -v rl0 caps
> > Capabilities: 48
>
> The above patch is completely unnecessary. The -m flag in ifconfig
> will do what you want.
>
> However, the existing ifconfig code does not print POLLING as a
> capability, whic
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:12:28AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>> > # ifconfig -v rl0 caps
>> > Capabilities: 48
>>
>> The above patch is completely unnecessary. The -m flag in ifconfig
>> will do what you want.
>>
>>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:30:57PM -0200, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:12:28AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >> > # ifconfig -v rl0 caps
> >> > Capabilities: 48
> >>
> >> The above patch is comple
On October 22, 2008 04:27 am David Peall wrote:
> While we are on the topic, I had a brief but happy encounter with ZFS
> while dump was broken on UFS2. Is there any indication as to when this
> would be suitable for a production environment?
Do you mean when will people use it in a production e
I think I have found the problem.
I want to do "zpool create www raidz da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6",but make
a mistake,type "zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6".
Then I remove one disk.
Then reboot,there is a panic.
I know this is my misktake.But should FreeBSD panic or FreeBSD go well
but zpoo
I think I have found the problem.
I want to do "zpool create www raidz da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6",but make
a mistake,type "zpool create www da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6".
Then I remove one disk.Shutdown system and add a new disk.
The two disks have an identical size.
Then reboot,there is a panic.
I know
One thing:must copy some data to the pool,remove one disk,shutdown,add
a new disk,start the box,get the panic.
My box uname -a:
FreeBSD freebsd.lpcy.com 7.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Tue
Oct 21 12:02:30 CST 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/lhmwzy amd64
_
Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes,that's is what I want to say.
> > In other word is the command "zfs allow" and "zfs unallow"
> > I think it is not "Support chflags(2)" which is described in at the
> > bottom of http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS
>
> Sorry, my unclear use of english! I did
Hi. I have some problems with USB->Serial FTDI FT232BM chip drivers on
FreeBSD 7.0... The system recognize the USB device, but when I making
connection to /dev/cuaU0 or /dev/ttyU0 I can't send or receive any data from
device.
cu -l/dev/cuaU0 -s9600 - No response at all, can't even quit the program
Hello i have tried 2 different wifi cards on my pc-bsd 7.0.1 it is running 7.1
PRERELEASE laptop and neither are detected by the system. Actually they are
detected but BSD does not seem to have drivers for them.
here are the model numbers of the cards are there kernel modules i need to load
or
where is the patch?
I can't find it in freebsd-fs@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/10/23 Fabian Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Yes,that's is what I want to say.
>> > In other word is the command "zfs allow" and "zfs unallow"
>> > I think it is not "Support chf
I haven't had time to investigate, but after installing 6.4RC1 on a
machine I've been using with 6.3 for a few months, it installs
painlessly but on the first and subsequent reboots you see
BTX Loader 1.00 blah blah blah
...
Loading /boot/defaults/loader.con
\
At this point you have a hard r
lhmwzy wrote:
where is the patch?
I can't find it in freebsd-fs@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/zfs_20080727.patch.bz2
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
T
On Thursday 23 October 2008 01:32:27 Jo Rhett wrote:
> I haven't had time to investigate, but after installing 6.4RC1 on a
> machine I've been using with 6.3 for a few months, it installs
> painlessly but on the first and subsequent reboots you see
>
> BTX Loader 1.00 blah blah blah
> ...
> Loading
This patch must be used in CURRENT??
cvsup src with tag=.
put and upzip the patch to /usr/src
use"patch < zfs_20080727.patch" to patch the file?
Is it right?
I have done following what I said,but find a few file in /usr/src
-rw-r--r--1 root wheel 4166 Oct 23 13:37 sha256.c
-rw-r--r--
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 06:27:45AM +0200, Milan Obuch wrote:
> On Thursday 23 October 2008 01:32:27 Jo Rhett wrote:
> > I haven't had time to investigate, but after installing 6.4RC1 on a
> > machine I've been using with 6.3 for a few months, it installs
> > painlessly but on the first and subseque
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:23:14PM +0800, lhmwzy wrote:
> This patch must be used in CURRENT??
Correct. This patch DOES NOT apply to RELENG_7 or earlier.
> cvsup src with tag=.
Consider using csup, which comes with the base system.
> put and upzip the patch to /usr/src
> use"patch < zfs_200807
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
lhmwzy wrote:
> This patch must be used in CURRENT??
> cvsup src with tag=.
> put and upzip the patch to /usr/src
> use"patch < zfs_20080727.patch" to patch the file?
>
> Is it right?
[...]
No. Current has been progressed too much for this patch to
What's you mean?
This patch is not suit for Current or Current has alreday have this patch?
2008/10/23 Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> lhmwzy wrote:
>
>> This patch must be used in CURRENT??
>> cvsup src with tag=.
>> put and upzip the patch to /us
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 06:27:45AM +0200, Milan Obuch wrote:
I did not investigate on this issue too much, but there is an workaround -
copy older /boot/loader over newer one. In my case, I am rebuilding whole
I have experienced loader troubles in the past whe
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:35:24PM +0800, lhmwzy wrote:
> What's you mean?
> This patch is not suit for Current or Current has alreday have this patch?
The patch was made against CURRENT's code dated August 27th.
There have been too many changes to CURRENT between August 27th and now
for the patc
OK.close this thread.:)
2008/10/23 Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:35:24PM +0800, lhmwzy wrote:
>> What's you mean?
>> This patch is not suit for Current or Current has alreday have this patch?
>
> The patch was made against CURRENT's code dated August 27th.
>
> T
36 matches
Mail list logo
