Hi,
Does ZFS flag blocks as bad so it knows to avoid using them in the future?
During testing I had huge numbers of unrecoverable checksum errors, which I
resolved by disabling write caching on the disks.
After doing this, and confirming the errors had stopped occuring, I removed the
test file
> Host w continuously has a UFS mounted with read/write
> access.
> Host w writes to the file f/ff/fff.
> Host w ceases to touch anything under f.
> Three hours later, host r mounts the file system read-only,
> reads f/ff/fff, and unmounts the file system.
This would probably work for a non-journa
On 27 August, 2007 - arb sent me these 1,0K bytes:
> Hello
>
> I've got nested ZFS filesystems exported via NFS.
>
> They are mounted on the clients using automount (from a NIS map).
>
> But: only the root exported filesystem shows any contents on the clients.
> Any sub-directories it has are f
Hello
I've got nested ZFS filesystems exported via NFS.
They are mounted on the clients using automount (from a NIS map).
But: only the root exported filesystem shows any contents on the clients.
Any sub-directories it has are fine, but any sub-filesystems are empty.
ie. NIS map auto.stuff cont
FYI, nvsata integrated into b72 for MCP55.
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/all/
[and there was much rejoicing :-)]
-- richard
Nathan Kroenert wrote:
> For what it's worth, I bought a Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4 a couple of months
> ago and it rocks on a reasonably current Nevad
zhanjinwei wrote:
> Hi:
> I plan to configure the remaining 46 disk on X4500 :
>
> 5x(8+1) raid[z]1 , 1 hot sapre
>
> Any problem?
>
> Does it means I can suffer 2 disk failure for each of the five group?
No. raidz1 offers single parity only. You should consider raidz2 which
offers double par
> OK, you asked for "creative" workarounds... here's one (though it requires
> that the filesystem be briefly unmounted, which may be deal-killing):
That is, indeed, creative. :) And yes, the unmount make it
impractical in my environment.
I ended up going back to rsync, because we had mor
Hello,
it seems that while designing the ZFS-Quota and bringing functionality into it
which
was not included in the traditional ufs user quota, some of its functionality
is missing.
In the FAQ is stated: "Per-user quotas were introduced because multiple users
had to share the same file system."
>I can confirm that the marvell88sx driver (or kernel 64a) regularly hangs the
>SATA card (SuperMicr
o 8-port) with the message about a port being reset. The hang is temporary but
troublesome.
>
This could be bug 6553517 which was fixed in build 66.
Casper
> I can confirm that the marvell88sx driver (or kernel
> 64a) regularly hangs the SATA card (SuperMicro
> 8-port) with the message about a port being reset.
> The hang is temporary but troublesome.
> It can be relieved by turning off NCQ in /etc/system
> with "set sata:sata_func_enable = 0x5"
Than
I can confirm that the marvell88sx driver (or kernel 64a) regularly hangs the
SATA card (SuperMicro 8-port) with the message about a port being reset. The
hang is temporary but troublesome.
It can be relieved by turning off NCQ in /etc/system with "set
sata:sata_func_enable = 0x5"
This messa
> > I tried to copy a 8GB Xen domU disk image from a zvol device
> > to an image file on an ufs filesystem, and was surprised that
> > reading from the zvol character device doesn't detect "EOF".
>
> I've filed bug 6596419...
Requesting a sponsor for bug 6596419...
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bug
12 matches
Mail list logo
