On 8/29/07, Jeffrey W. Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days,
> and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based
> entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I'm not afraid of
> ext4's newness, since real
Jeffrey,
it would be interesting to see your zpool layout info as well.
It can significantly influence the results obtained in the benchmarks.
On 8/30/07, Jeffrey W. Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days,
> and at the same time I
I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days,
and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based
entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I'm not afraid of
ext4's newness, since really a lot of that stuff has been in Lustre for
years. So a-bench
do either of you know the current story about this card? i can't get it to work
at all in solaris 10, but i'm very new to the OS.
thanks!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.
MC wrote:
>> This is a problem for replacement, not creation.
>
> You're talking about solving the problem in the future? I'm talking about
> working around the problem today. :) This isn't a fluffy dream problem. I
> ran into this last month when an RMA'd drive wouldn't fit back into a RAID
> This is a problem for replacement, not creation.
You're talking about solving the problem in the future? I'm talking about
working around the problem today. :) This isn't a fluffy dream problem. I
ran into this last month when an RMA'd drive wouldn't fit back into a RAID5
array. RAIDZ is
Has anyone considered the Gigabyte GA-G33-DS3R which has a G33 chipset (P35
with builtin video). It has that builtin VGA and the most on board, well
supported, SATA ports I could find:
8xSATA; 6xSATA provided by the ICH9 and 2xSATA on JMB363. The latter must be
supported by OpenSolaris? It's bee
I followed the procedure to add a ZFS dataset to a non-global, whole-root zone
as a delegated dataset as described in the ZFS Admin Guide, page 129. What is
the proper way to remove it? I tried the following:
>From the global zone:
1) halt the zone
2) use zonecfg to remove the dataset
3) boot t
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 11:40:34PM +0530, Balu manyam wrote:
> Thanks ,Eric - I am looking for a way to import a zpool which is a bit by
> bit copy of the zpool(hence also the meta data) which is already imported on
> the same host ..that is two pools one imported and one not are presented to
> the
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 09:41 -0700, Eric Schrock wrote:
> Note that 'fstyp -v' does the same thing as 'zdb -l', and
> is marginally more stable. The output it still technically subject to
> change, but it's highly unlikely (given the pain such a change would
> cause).
If other programs depend on a
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:29:50PM +0530, Balu manyam wrote:
> Thanks!,Eric and Darren -- 'zdb -l ' was indeed what I was
> looking for ..
>
> Also, Is there an easy way to change this ID manually - This would be
> extremely useful in a SAN environment.
No, there is no way to change it.
- Eric
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 05:39:19PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Eric Schrock wrote:
> > You can use 'zdb -l ' where 'dev' is a device in the pool, and then
> > look for the 'pool_guid' line (note that this is "not an interface" and
> > could theoretically change). An upcoming putback will add t
Eric Schrock wrote:
> You can use 'zdb -l ' where 'dev' is a device in the pool, and then
> look for the 'pool_guid' line (note that this is "not an interface" and
> could theoretically change). An upcoming putback will add the guid as a
> first-class pool property, so that it can be used in 'zpoo
You can use 'zdb -l ' where 'dev' is a device in the pool, and then
look for the 'pool_guid' line (note that this is "not an interface" and
could theoretically change). An upcoming putback will add the guid as a
first-class pool property, so that it can be used in 'zpool list' or
'zpool get'.
- E
> i have a similar problem - i am trying to add a zfs volume to a non-global
> zone without rebooting it. it is not practical to shutdown the application
> just to add one more raw device.
> is there a way to manually create the device files in /dev/zvol/... in the
> zone and make it aware of th
Hi folks --
What's the best way to get the id associated with a zpool name(without
importing it if it is already not done so) -- that is - given the disk device
name - I would to love get the ID of the zpool of which this disk is a part of.
Thanks!
--Balu
This message posted from openso
MC wrote:
> Thanks for the comprehensive replies!
>
> I'll need some baby speak on this one though:
>
>> The recommended use of whole disks is for drives with volatile write
>> caches where ZFS will enable the cache if it owns the whole disk. There
>> may be an RFE lurking here, but it might b
sean walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We mostly rely on AMANDA, but for a simple, compressed, encrypted,
> tape-spanning alternative backup (intended for disaster recovery) we use:
>
> tar cf - | lzf (quick compression utility) | ssl (to encrypt) |
> mbuffer (which writes to tape and looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >AFAIK, a read-only UFS mount will unroll the log and thus write to th=
> >e medium.
>
>
> It does not (that's what code inspection suggests).
>
> It will update the in-memory image with the log entries but the
> log will not be rolled.
Why then does fsck mount the fs
>AFAIK, a read-only UFS mount will unroll the log and thus write to th=
>e medium.
It does not (that's what code inspection suggests).
It will update the in-memory image with the log entries but the
log will not be rolled.
Casper
___
zfs-discuss mai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> It's worse than this. Consider the read-only clients. When you
> >> access a filesystem object (file, directory, etc.), UFS will write
> >> metadata to update atime. I believe that there is a noatime option to
> >> mount, but I am unsure as to whether this is suf
Pawel Jakub Dawidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:00:10PM -0700, RL wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does ZFS flag blocks as bad so it knows to avoid using them in the future?
>
> No it doesn't. This would be a really nice feature to have, but
> currently when ZFS tries to write t
I have read you papers for several times ,they are so helpful!
the difference between raidz2 and [raidz1 + 1 hot spare] is :
If there are 2 disk in a pool fail at the same time ,it's a disaster for the
later configuration ,and the raidz2 pool is so stable to avoid it.
But,if the 2 disk fail at d
hello all,
i have a similar problem - i am trying to add a zfs volume to a non-global zone
without rebooting it. it is not practical to shutdown the application just to
add one more raw device.
is there a way to manually create the device files in /dev/zvol/... in the zone
and make it aware of
Hello Brad,
Monday, August 27, 2007, 3:47:47 PM, you wrote:
>> OK, you asked for "creative" workarounds... here's one (though it requires
>> that the filesystem be briefly unmounted, which may be deal-killing):
BP> That is, indeed, creative. :) And yes, the unmount make it
BP> impractical i
25 matches
Mail list logo
