Brandon High freaks.com> writes:
> [...]
> The lack of documentation for supported devices is a general complaint
> of mine with Solaris x86, perhaps better taken to the opensolaris-discuss
> list however.
I replied to all your questions in opensolaris-discuss.
-marc
___
Bill Shannon wrote:
> I just wanted to follow up on this issue I raised a few weeks ago.
>
> With help from several of you, I had all the information and tools
> I needed to start debugging my problem. Which of course meant that
> my problem disappeared!
>
> At one point my theory was that ksh93
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
>
>> I will go ahead and do a fastrack to get the behavior that many people
>> want. Basically, if inheritable ACEs are present for owner@, group@,
>> everyone@ then the inherited ACE permissions will override the requested
>> m
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> I will go ahead and do a fastrack to get the behavior that many people
> want. Basically, if inheritable ACEs are present for owner@, group@,
> everyone@ then the inherited ACE permissions will override the requested
> mode of the application. If no
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>
>> I suspect at least some of the membership would be interested in this
>> sort of extension and it shouldn't be that hard to "sell" if it's not the
>> default behavior and it's clearly documented that turning it on (probably
>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Marc Bevand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PCI-X card...). The rest is also dirty cheap: $65 Asus M2A-VM motherboard,
> $60
> dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4000+, with 1GB of DDR2 800, and a 400W PSU.
Apologies for the threadjack (um, again) but did you know that the
RS6
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> I suspect at least some of the membership would be interested in this
> sort of extension and it shouldn't be that hard to "sell" if it's not the
> default behavior and it's clearly documented that turning it on (probably
> on a fs-by-fs basis like eve
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 18:11 -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> > I think it is a misnomer to call the current
> > implementation of ZFS a "pure ACL" system, as clearly the ACLs are heavily
> > contaminated by legacy mode bits.
>
> Feel free to open an RFE. It may be a tough sell with PSARC, but m
Kyle McDonald schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone explain to me, or point me to any docs that explain how the
> following numbers map together?
>
> I have multiple LUNS exported to my HBA's from multiple EMC arrays.
>
> zpool status, and /dev/dsk show device names like:
>
> c0t6006048000
Brandon High freaks.com> writes:
> Do you have access to a Sil3726 port multiplier?
Nope. But AFAIK OpenSolaris doesn't support port multipliers yet. Maybe
FreeBSD does.
Keep in mind that three modern drives (334GB/platter) are all it takes to
saturate a SATA 3.0Gbps link.
> It's also easier to
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/17/08, Brandon High <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > easier to use an external disk box like the CFI 8-drive eSATA tower
> > than find a reasonable server case that can hold that many drives.
>
> Woah, why would you spend 1600$ on
So yeah, you just supported what I said about a database on top of a filesystem
being useful because HFS uses a database type structure for it's catalog. It's
an object based storage but the schema in HFS isn't as extensible as to what
I'm referring to in future Content Addressable Storage syste
Have you ever used a Mac? HFS has had these features for years.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Bryan Wagoner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, having a database on top of an FS is really useful. It's a Content
> Addressable Storage system.One of the problem home users have is that
>
Hi all,
Did anyone ever confirm whether this ssr212 box, without hardware raid
option, works reliably under OpenSolaris without fooling around with external
drivers, etc.? I need a box like this, but can't find a vendor that will give
me a try & buy. (Yes, I'm spoiled by Sun).
thx
jak
That sounds neat. Just like spotlight(?) search function for Mac OS X, but
built into the DB on top the file system? Is fast searches the only advantage?
Then, isnt there any spotlight search function for solaris?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
On 3/17/08, Brandon High <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Marc Bevand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > integrated AHCI controller (SB600 chipset), 2 disks on a 2-port $20
> PCI-E 1x
> > SiI3132 controller, and the 7th disk on a $65 4-port PCI-X SiI3124
> controller
>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Marc Bevand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> integrated AHCI controller (SB600 chipset), 2 disks on a 2-port $20 PCI-E 1x
> SiI3132 controller, and the 7th disk on a $65 4-port PCI-X SiI3124 controller
Do you have access to a Sil3726 port multiplier? I'd like to see
Actually, having a database on top of an FS is really useful. It's a Content
Addressable Storage system.One of the problem home users have is that they
are putting more and more of their lives in digital format. Users need a way
to organize and search all that info in some sort of meaningf
Hi all,
Can anyone explain to me, or point me to any docs that explain how the
following numbers map together?
I have multiple LUNS exported to my HBA's from multiple EMC arrays.
zpool status, and /dev/dsk show device names like:
c0t600604838794003753594D333837d0 ONLINE 0
Orvar Korvar wrote:
> Ok, thanx for your answers!
>
> So, I guess there is no point in providing a database on top of ZFS, just as
> MS tried to do? A WinFS like thing on ZFS wouldnt be beneficial at all?
> Better off with plain ZFS?
>
I don't think this is a simple question. The way ZFS is
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Orvar Korvar wrote:
>
> So, I guess there is no point in providing a database on top of ZFS,
> just as MS tried to do? A WinFS like thing on ZFS wouldnt be
> beneficial at all? Better off with plain ZFS?
That would depend entirely on requirements and expectations. The
issu
Ok, thanx for your answers!
So, I guess there is no point in providing a database on top of ZFS, just as MS
tried to do? A WinFS like thing on ZFS wouldnt be beneficial at all? Better off
with plain ZFS?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Patrick Schlaepfer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to migrate a zpool mirror to
> a zpool raidz?
>
> Right now I do have two disk mirrored. So,
> can I add a thrid and migrate this pool to
> a raidz pool, or do I have to backup all the
> data in the
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Orvar Korvar wrote:
>
> My question is, because WinFS database is running on top of NTFS,
> could a similar thing be done for ZFS? Implement a database running
> on top of ZFS, that has similar functionality as WinFS?
Object-oriented content management could be run on any so
Hi All ;
I am not a Solaris or ZFS expert and I am in need of your help.
When I run the following command
zfs send -i [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ssh 10.10.103.42 zfs receive
-F data/data41
if some one is accessing data/data41 folder system gives the following error
mes
Please check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS
MS put a lot of efforts on it however they were unable to lunch it.
Best regards
Mertol Ozyoney
Storage Practice - Sales Manager
Sun Microsystems, TR
Istanbul TR
Phone +902123352200
Mobile +905339310752
Fax +90212335
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED
> Ive heard that WinFS is a filesystem that has some kind of database? I didnt
> understand the advantages because I havent read about it, but it is the best
> thing since sliced bread according to MS.
>
> My question is, because WinFS database is running on top of NTFS, could a
> similar thing
Ive heard that WinFS is a filesystem that has some kind of database? I didnt
understand the advantages because I havent read about it, but it is the best
thing since sliced bread according to MS.
My question is, because WinFS database is running on top of NTFS, could a
similar thing be done for
28 matches
Mail list logo
