Ok, thank you Nils, Wade for the concise replies.
After much reading I agree that the ZFS-development queued features do deserve
a higher ranking on the priority list (pool-shrinking/disk-removal and
user/group quotas would be my favourites), so probably the deduplication tool
I'd need would, i
That's a good point - I'll try svn94 if I can get my hands on it - any idea
where the download for it is? I've been going round in circles and all I can
come up with are the variants of svn96 - CD, DVD (2 images), DVD (single
image). Maybe that's a sign I should give up for the night!
Chris
Ah-ha! That certainly looks like the same issue Miles - well spotted! As it
happens, the "zdb" command failed with "out of memory -- generating core dump"
whereas all four dd's completed successfully.
I'm downloading snv96 right now - I'll install in the morning and post my
results both here, a
Miles Nordin wrote:
>> "cm" == Chris Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> cm> The next issue is that when the pool is actually imported
> cm> ("zpool import -f zp"), it too hangs the whole system, albeit
> cm> after a minute or so of disk activity.
>
> could it be #6573681?
>
>
Hi
I have planned to relayout current mirrored boot disk configuration which comes
from days no zfs boot.
History -> I just converted old ufs boot slices to zfs boot , those where
mirrored using solaris volume manager to zfs boot...
Current layout is :
2 disks as c0d0 and c1d0
NAME STATE READ W
> Depending on exactly how you did it, that should have already happened.
> A pool will expand automatically (even in situations where you might not
> want it to.)
>
> Can you show details of your existing configuration that show that it
> hasn't expanded?
# fdisk -W - /dev/rdsk/c0d0p0
* Dimensio
> "cm" == Chris Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
cm> The next issue is that when the pool is actually imported
cm> ("zpool import -f zp"), it too hangs the whole system, albeit
cm> after a minute or so of disk activity.
could it be #6573681?
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/mess
Hi all,
I have a RAID-Z zpool made up of 4 x SATA drives running on Nexenta 1.0.1
(OpenSolaris b85 kernel). It has on it some ZFS filesystems and few volumes
that are shared to various windows boxes over iSCSI. On one particular iSCSI
volume, I discovered that I had mistakenly deleted some fil
> "jcm" == James C McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "thp" == Todd H Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "mh" == Matt Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "js" == John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "re" == Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "cg
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 08:17:55PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
> >
> > Look, yanking the drives like that can seriously damage the drives
> > or your motherboard. Solaris doesn't let you do it ...
Haven't seen an andruid/"universal soldier" shipping with Solaris ... ;-)
>
Thanks for your response, from which I have known more details. However, there
is one thing I am still not clear--maybe at first the size of a file is smaller
than 128KB(or user-defined value), zfs can adopt some block size as you
described, but when the size becomes more than 128KB by reason of
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Carson Gaspar wrote:
>
> B) The driver does not detect the removal. Commands must time out before
> a problem is detected. Due to driver layering, timeouts increase
> rapidly, causig te OS to "hang" for unreasonable periods of time.
>
> We really need to fix (B). It seems the "
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> If you are running B95, that "may" be the problem. I
> have no problem booting B93 (& previous builds) from
> a USB stick, but B95, which has a newer version of
> ZFS, does not allow me to boot from it (& the USB
> stick was of course recognized during installation of
> B9
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008, Todd H. Poole wrote:
> So aside from telling me to "[never] try this sort of thing with
> IDE" does anyone else have any other ideas on how to prevent
> OpenSolaris from locking up whenever an IDE drive is abruptly
> disconnected from a ZFS RAID-Z array?
I think that your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/22/2008 04:26:35 PM:
> Just my 2c: Is it possible to do an "offline" dedup, kind of like
> snapshotting?
>
> What I mean in practice, is: we make many Solaris full-root zones.
> They share a lot of data as complete files. This is kind of easy to
> save space - make
Todd H. Poole wrote:
> Howdy 404, thanks for the response.
>
> But I dunno man... I think I disagree... I'm kinda of the opinion that
> regardless of what happens to hardware, an OS should be able to work around
> it, if it's possible. If a sysadmin wants to yank a hard drive out of a
> motherbo
Justin wrote:
> Howdy Matt. Just to make it absolutely clear, I appreciate your
> response. I would be quite lost if it weren't for all of the input.
>
>> Unplugging a drive (actually pulling the cable out) does not
>> simulate a drive failure, it simulates a drive getting unplugged,
>> which is
Ralf Ramge wrote:
[...]
Oh, and please excuse the grammar mistakes and typos. I'm in a hurry,
not a retard ;-) At least I think so.
--
Ralf Ramge
Senior Solaris Administrator, SCNA, SCSA
Tel. +49-721-91374-3963
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://web.de/
1&1 Internet AG
Brauerstraße 48
76135 Karlsru
For files smaller than the default (128K) or the user-defined value, the
recordsize will be the smallest power of two between 512 bytes and the
appropriate upper limit. For anything above the value, it's the defined
recordsize for every block in the file. Variable recordsize is only for
single bloc
Todd H. Poole wrote:
> Hmmm... I see what you're saying. But, ok, let me play devil's advocate. What
> about the times when a drive fails in a way the system didn't expect? What
> you said was right - most of the time, when a hard drive goes bad, SMART will
> pick up on it's impending doom long
John Sonnenschein wrote:
> Look, yanking the drives like that can seriously damage the drives or
> your motherboard. Solaris doesn't let you do it and assumes that
> something's gone seriously wrong if you try it. That Linux ignores
> the behavior and lets you do it sounds more like a bug in linux
alrigt, alright, but your fault. you left your workstation logged on, what was
i supposed to do? not chime in?
grotty yank
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/
jalex? As in Justin Alex?
If you're who I think you are, don't you have a pretty long list of things you
need to get done for Jerry before your little vacation?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@openso
John Sonnenschein wrote:
> James isn't being a jerk because he hates your or anything...
>
> Look, yanking the drives like that can seriously damage the drives or your
> motherboard. Solaris doesn't let you do it and assumes that something's gone
> seriously wrong if you try it. That Linux ignore
Howdy 404, thanks for the response.
But I dunno man... I think I disagree... I'm kinda of the opinion that
regardless of what happens to hardware, an OS should be able to work around it,
if it's possible. If a sysadmin wants to yank a hard drive out of a motherboard
(despite the risk of damage
Howdy Matt. Just to make it absolutely clear, I appreciate your response. I
would be quite lost if it weren't for all of the input.
> Unplugging a drive (actually pulling the cable out) does not simulate a
> drive failure, it simulates a drive getting unplugged, which is
> something the hardwar
Howdy Matt, thanks for the response.
But I dunno man... I think I disagree... I'm kinda of the opinion that
regardless of what happens to hardware, an OS should be able to work around it,
if it's possible. If a sysadmin wants to yank a hard drive out of a motherboard
(despite the risk of damage
27 matches
Mail list logo
