I'm doing a putback onto my local workstation, watching the disk
activity with "zpool iostat", when I start to notice something
quite strange...
zpool iostat 1
capacity operationsbandwidth
pool used avail read write read write
-- - - -
On 24-Oct-06, at 9:47 PM, James McPherson wrote:
Could you look through your msgbuf and/or /var/adm/messages and
find the full text of when these Illegal Request errors were
logged. That
will give an idea of where to look next.
Ok it doesn't look like it's the controller, I ran some tests
Hello,
just installed build 50, and typed 'zfs' in a shell.
I got the help message, and was surprised with it :
bash-3.00# zfs
commande manquante
syntaxe : zfs command args ...
où 'command' est l'une des possibilités suivantes :
create [[-o property=value] ... ]
On Wed, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2006, at 15:38, Roger Ripley wrote:
>
> >IBM has contributed code for NFSv4 ACLs under AIX's JFS; hopefully
> >Sun will not tarry in following their lead for ZFS.
> >
> >http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-cvs/2006-September/070855.html
>
> I tho
On Oct 25, 2006, at 15:38, Roger Ripley wrote:
IBM has contributed code for NFSv4 ACLs under AIX's JFS; hopefully
Sun will not tarry in following their lead for ZFS.
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-cvs/2006-September/070855.html
I thought this was still in draft:
http://ietf.org/inter
IBM has contributed code for NFSv4 ACLs under AIX's JFS; hopefully Sun will not
tarry in following their lead for ZFS.
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-cvs/2006-September/070855.html
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss maili
eric kustarz wrote [in part]
What bits are you running?
s10r2.
thumper-12tb# zpool add backup c7t7d0
invalid vdev specification
use '-f' to override the following errors:
mismatched replication level: pool uses raidz and new vdev is disk
interesting. that helps.
Did you use the -f flag
ozan s. yigit wrote:
we thought we would try adding a disk to an existing raidz pool
named backup:
# zpool status
...
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
backup ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz ONLINE 0 0 0
c4t2d0 ONLINE 0
thanks for confirming my observation vis a vis the failure characteristics
of the pool. this is strictly experimentation as well; we thought there may
be no way to extend a raidz pool seamlessly, but wanted to test to see what
zpool did.
since the fundamental safety property of the pool is blown
On 10/25/06, ozan s. yigit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ah. looks like the new disk is not a part of the raidz set,
yet the diskspace in the pool increased appropriately.
Yes. A pool can hold many vdevs, an uses the space in all of them.
if this
pool is used as is, can it still offer the raid
we thought we would try adding a disk to an existing raidz pool
named backup:
# zpool status
...
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
backup ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz ONLINE 0 0 0
c4t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hi.
Today again the same problem - however not that severe so I'm not sure if
below lockstat is representative.
# lockstat -kgIW sleep 5 | less
Profiling interrupt: 1968 events in 5.072 seconds (388 events/sec)
Count genr cuml rcnt nsec Hottest CPU+PILC
hi Thomas,
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 14:58 -0700, Thomas Maier-Komor wrote:
> Is this a known problem/bug?
Yep, that sounds a bit like 6482985.
> $ zfs snapshot zpool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> internal error: unexpected error 16 at line 2302 of ../common/libzfs_dataset.c
>
> this occured on:
> $ uname -a
Hi.
Today again the same problem - however not that severe so I'm not sure if
below lockstat is representative.
# lockstat -kgIW sleep 5 | less
Profiling interrupt: 1968 events in 5.072 seconds (388 events/sec)
Count genr cuml rcnt nsec Hottest CPU+PILCaller
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:31:41PM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote:
> Okay, then if the person can stand to lose even more space, do zfs
> mirroring on each JBOD. Then we'd have a mirror of mirrors instead of
> a mirror of raidz's.
>
> Remember, the OP wanted chassis-level redundancy as well as
> re
On 10/25/06, Jonathan Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:26, Dale Ghent wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
>
>> On October 24, 2006 9:19:07 AM -0700 "Anton B. Rang"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our thinking is that if you want more redundancy
Hello Matthew,
Wednesday, October 25, 2006, 7:08:56 AM, you wrote:
MA> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> On nfs clients which are mounting file system f3-1/d611 I can see 3-5s
>> periods of 100% busy (iostat) and almost no IOs issued to nfs server, on nfs
>> server at the same time disk
Hello Sergio,
Wednesday, October 25, 2006, 1:29:25 AM, you wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> If I create an Oracle volume using zfs like this
>> # zpool create -f oracle c0t1d0
>> # zfs create -V 500mb oracle/system.dbf
>> # cd /dev/zvol/rdsk/oracle
>> # chown oracle:oinstall system.dbf
>>
>> Would it be si
18 matches
Mail list logo
