Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Jeff Bonwick
> What was the reason to make ZFS use directory sizes as the number of > entries rather than the way other Unix filesystems use it? In UFS, the st_size is the size of the directory inode as though it were a file. The only reason it's like that is that UFS is sloppy and lets you cat directories --

[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee

2007-06-09 Thread ganesh
Thanks Darren, but the snapshot taken at 4 would be the snapshot on the storage and not on the host so the storage system wouldnt really have to bother about flushing the host FS or about consistency...which would be more a function of the host FS or app?. This message posted from opensolari

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Ed Ravin
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 02:01:35PM -0700, Eric Schrock wrote: > On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 01:56:35PM -0700, Ed Ravin wrote: > > > > I encountered the problem in NetBSD's scandir(), when reading off > > a Solaris NFS fileserver with ZFS filesystems. I've already filed a > > bug report with NetBSD.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Eric Schrock
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 01:56:35PM -0700, Ed Ravin wrote: > > I encountered the problem in NetBSD's scandir(), when reading off > a Solaris NFS fileserver with ZFS filesystems. I've already filed a > bug report with NetBSD. They were using the st_size, divided by 24, to > determine how much memo

[zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Ed Ravin
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 10:16:34PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Oh, I see, this is bug 6479267: st_size (struct stat) is unreliable in > >ZFS. Any word on when the fix will be out? > > It's a bug in scandir (obviously) and it is filed as such. > > Does scandir fail on zfs because of this o

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Joerg Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Oh, I see, this is bug 6479267: st_size (struct stat) is unreliable in > >ZFS. Any word on when the fix will be out? > > It's a bug in scandir (obviously) and it is filed as such. A very old bug. I fixed it for a Berthold AG customer in 1992 when Novell Netware did

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Eric Schrock
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 10:16:34PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Oh, I see, this is bug 6479267: st_size (struct stat) is unreliable in > >ZFS. Any word on when the fix will be out? > > It's a bug in scandir (obviously) and it is filed as such. > > Does scandir fail on zfs because of thi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Casper . Dik
>Oh, I see, this is bug 6479267: st_size (struct stat) is unreliable in >ZFS. Any word on when the fix will be out? It's a bug in scandir (obviously) and it is filed as such. Does scandir fail on zfs because of this or does scandir needs to reallocate and does it use the size as first order est

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs bug

2007-06-09 Thread Eric Schrock
You have created an unreplicated pool of the form: pool raidz /export/sl1 /export/sl2 /export/sl3 /export/sl4 I believe 'zpool add' will warn you about this, hence needing the '-f'. You then overwrite the entire cont

[zfs-discuss] zfs bug

2007-06-09 Thread Fyodor Ustinov
dd if=/dev/zero of=sl1 bs=512 count=256000 dd if=/dev/zero of=sl2 bs=512 count=256000 dd if=/dev/zero of=sl3 bs=512 count=256000 dd if=/dev/zero of=sl4 bs=512 count=256000 zpool create -m /export/test1 test1 raidz /export/sl1 /export/sl2 /export/sl3 zpool add -f test1 /export/sl4 dd if=/dev/zero of

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee

2007-06-09 Thread David Magda
On Jun 9, 2007, at 06:14, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: I wish there was a uniform way whereby applications could register their ability to achieve or release consistency on demand, and if registered, could also communicate back that they had either achieved consistency on-disk, or were unable to d

[zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Ed Ravin
Oh, I see, this is bug 6479267: st_size (struct stat) is unreliable in ZFS. Any word on when the fix will be out? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/l

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Joerg Schilling
Ed Ravin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why does ZFS report such small directory sizes? For example, take a maildir > directory with ten entries: > > total 2385 > drwx-- 8 17121vmail 10 Jun 8 23:50 . > drwx--x--x 14 root root 14 May 12 2006 .. > drwx-- 5 171

[zfs-discuss] zfs reports small st_size for directories?

2007-06-09 Thread Ed Ravin
Why does ZFS report such small directory sizes? For example, take a maildir directory with ten entries: total 2385 drwx-- 8 17121vmail 10 Jun 8 23:50 . drwx--x--x 14 root root 14 May 12 2006 .. drwx-- 5 17121vmail 5 May 25 18:16 .Trash drwx---

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS

2007-06-09 Thread Joerg Schilling
Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll just add, but not for Mac OS X. It was way back in Finder 7 > > days, > > when they used to ship A/UX. (That was where I cut my unix teeth.) > > I was actually thinking more of NEXTSTEP, certainly a generation > beyond A/UX; and OS X, a generati

[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee

2007-06-09 Thread Richard L. Hamilton
I wish there was a uniform way whereby applications could register their ability to achieve or release consistency on demand, and if registered, could also communicate back that they had either achieved consistency on-disk, or were unable to do so. That would allow backup procedures to automatical