Marcus Sundman wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've used format's "volname" command to give labels to my drives
> according to their physical location. I did quite a lot of work
> labeling all my drives (I couldn't figure out which controller got
> which numbers so I had to disconnect drives one by one, and they'
I found setting atime=off was enough to get zfs receive working for me, but the
readonly property should work as well.
I chose not to set the pool readonly, as I want to be able to use my backup
pool as a replacement easily, without changing any settings. Not using -F
means that as soon as the
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 03:19:49AM +0300, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> I've used format's "volname" command to give labels to my drives
> according to their physical location. I did quite a lot of work
> labeling all my drives (I couldn't figure out which controller got
> which numbers so I had to disco
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Jeff Bonwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note: even in a single-device pool, ZFS metadata is replicated via
> ditto blocks at two or three different places on the device, so that
> a localized media failure can be both detected and corrected.
> If you have two or m
I've been playing with Solaris express community edition on some x4500
servers (SunOS kenny 5.11 snv_97 i86pc i386 i86pc), trying to get a head
start on a configuration for U6 when it comes out (soon I hope).
Sometimes zfs commands take extremely long to execute, other times they are
very fast. I
> Or is there a way to mitigate a checksum error on non-redundant zpool?
It's just like the difference between non-parity, parity, and ECC memory.
Most filesystems don't have checksums (non-parity), so they don't even
know when they're returning corrupt data. ZFS without any replication
can detec
On Oct 10, 2008, at 15:48, Victor Latushkin wrote:
> I've mostly seen (2), because despite all the best practices out
> there,
> single vdev pools are quite common. In all such cases that I had my
> hands on it was possible to recover pool by going back by one or two
> txgs.
For better or wor
Hi
I've used format's "volname" command to give labels to my drives
according to their physical location. I did quite a lot of work
labeling all my drives (I couldn't figure out which controller got
which numbers so I had to disconnect drives one by one, and they're not
hotpluggable => lot's of re
Paul,
> I have a question about ZFS and how it protects data integrity in the
> context of a replication scenario.
>
> First, ZFS is designed such that all data on disk is in a consistent
> state. Likewise, all data in a ZFS snapshot on disk is in a
> consistent
> state. Further, ZFS, by virtu
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 04:09:08PM -0700, Joe S wrote:
> Sorry if this is the wrong list, but I would like to know if this is a
> known problem, or if its just me.
>
> I'm in the middle of a live upgrade on an x86 box.
>
> I type this command:
> # luupgrade -u -n snv_99 -s /mnt
[..]
> Then the bo
Sorry if this is the wrong list, but I would like to know if this is a
known problem, or if its just me.
I'm in the middle of a live upgrade on an x86 box.
I type this command:
# luupgrade -u -n snv_99 -s /mnt
~~~output~~~
System has findroot enabled GRUB
No entry for BE in GRUB menu
Copying fa
Timh Bergström wrote:
> 2008/10/10 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Timh Bergström wrote:
>>
>>> 2008/10/9 Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>>
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
> catastrophically. If this is really the situation, th
"David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, October 7, 2008 09:19, Johan Hartzenberg wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be great if programmers could just focus on writing code
>> rather than having to worry about getting sued over whether someone
>> else is able or not to make a derivative prog
You've seen -F be necessary on some systems and not on others?
Also, was the mount=legacy suggestion for my problem with not wanting to use -F
or for my "cannot create mountpoint" problem? Or both?
If you use legacy mountpoints, does that mean that mounting the parent
filesystem doesn't actual
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:56 PM, BJ Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, here's what I tried - first of all, I set the backup FS to readonly.
> That resulted in the same error message. Strange, how could something have
> changed since the last snapshot if I CONSCIOUSLY didn't change anything or
On Sex, 2008-10-10 at 11:23 -0700, Eric Schrock wrote:
> But I haven't actually heard a reasonable proposal for what a
> fsck-like tool (i.e. one that could "repair" things automatically) would
> actually *do*, let alone how it would work in the variety of situations
> it needs to (compressed RAID-
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:15:16AM -0700, Marcelo
> Leal wrote:
> > - "ZFS does not need fsck".
> > Ok, that?s a great statement, but i think ZFS
> needs one. Really does.
> > And in my opinion a enhanced zdb would be the
> solution. Flexibility.
> > Options.
>
> About 99% of the problems re
Ok, in addition to my "why do I have to use -F" post above, now I've tried it
with -F but after the first in the series of snapshots gets sent, it gives me a
"cannot mount '/backup/shares': failed to create mountpoint".
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
2008/10/10 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Timh Bergström wrote:
>>
>> 2008/10/9 Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
>>>
catastrophically. If this is really the situation, then ZFS needs to
give the sysadmin a way to isolate
Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:15:16AM -0700, Marcelo Leal wrote:
>> - "ZFS does not need fsck".
>> Ok, that?s a great statement, but i think ZFS needs one. Really does.
>> And in my opinion a enhanced zdb would be the solution. Flexibility.
>> Options.
>
> About 99% of the p
On Tue, October 7, 2008 09:19, Johan Hartzenberg wrote:
> Wouldn't it be great if programmers could just focus on writing code
> rather
> than having to worry about getting sued over whether someone else is able
> or not to make a derivative program from their code?
If that's what you want, it's
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:15:16AM -0700, Marcelo Leal wrote:
> - "ZFS does not need fsck".
> Ok, that?s a great statement, but i think ZFS needs one. Really does.
> And in my opinion a enhanced zdb would be the solution. Flexibility.
> Options.
About 99% of the problems reported as "I need ZF
> "jb" == Jeff Bonwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "rmc" == Ricardo M Correia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jb> We need a little more Code of Hammurabi in the storage
jb> industry.
It seems like most of the work people have to do now is cleaning up
after the sloppyness of others.
Mark Wymer wrote:
> Something for consideration perhaps, as well as being able to specify the
> quota and reservation sizes as an absolute number it would be nice to be able
> to specify a relative percentage too.
>
> i.e. zfs create -o quota=10% tank/testfs
>
> This would enable the quota to
Hello all,
I think the problem here is the ZFS´ capacity for recovery from a failure.
Forgive me, but thinking about creating a code "without failures", maybe the
hackers did forget that other people can make mistakes (if they can´t).
- "ZFS does not need fsck".
Ok, that´s a great statement,
Hello Everyone,
I have recently jumped onto the OpenSolaris bandwagon coming from FreeBSD,
mainly because FreeBSD's ZFS stability is pretty bad. So a few weeks ago I
rebuilt my BSD NAS to OpenSolaris using ZFS and CIFS. Everything has been
working fine and I'm loving OpenSolaris. I haven't ha
On 10/10/2008, at 5:12 PM, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
> On 10/10/08 05:06 PM, Boyd Adamson wrote:
>> Alex Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Is it fun to have autocomplete in zpool or zfs command?
>>>
>>> For instance -
>>>
>>>"zfs cr 'Tab key' " will become "zfs create"
>>>"zfs clone 'Tab k
Tim Foster wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 22:40 -0700, Alex Peng wrote:
>> Is it fun to have autocomplete in zpool or zfs command?
>>
>> For instance -
>>
>> "zfs cr 'Tab key' " will become "zfs create"
>> "zfs clone 'Tab key' " will show me the available snapshots
>> "zfs set 'Tab key'
I'm wondering if this bug is fixed and if not, what is the bug number:
> If your entire pool consisted of a single mirror of
> two disks, A and B,
> and you detached B at some point in the past, you
> *should* be able to
> recover the pool as it existed when you detached B.
> However, I just
> ri
Hi Jeff,
On Sex, 2008-10-10 at 01:26 -0700, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
> > The circumstances where I have lost data have been when ZFS has not
> > handled a layer of redundancy. However, I am not terribly optimistic
> > of the prospects of ZFS on any device that hasn't committed writes
> > that ZFS thin
That sounds like a great idea for a tool Jeff. Would it be possible to build
that in as a "zpool recover" command?
Being able to run a tool like that and see just how bad the corruption is, but
know it's possible to recover an older version would be great. Is there any
chance of outputting de
> The circumstances where I have lost data have been when ZFS has not
> handled a layer of redundancy. However, I am not terribly optimistic
> of the prospects of ZFS on any device that hasn't committed writes
> that ZFS thinks are committed.
FYI, I'm working on a workaround for broken devices.
2008/10/9 Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
>>
>> catastrophically. If this is really the situation, then ZFS needs to
>> give the sysadmin a way to isolate and fix the problems
>> deterministically before filling the pool with data, not just blame
>> t
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 22:40 -0700, Alex Peng wrote:
> Is it fun to have autocomplete in zpool or zfs command?
>
> For instance -
>
> "zfs cr 'Tab key' " will become "zfs create"
> "zfs clone 'Tab key' " will show me the available snapshots
> "zfs set 'Tab key' " will show me the avail
Hi,
on a Solaris 10u5 box (X4500) with latest patches (Oct 8) one disk was
marked as failed. We replaced it yesterday, I configured it via cfgadm
and told ZFS to replace it with the replacement:
cfgadm -c configure sata1/4
zpool replace atlashome c1t4d0
Initially it looked well, resilvering star
Solaris wrote:
> Perhaps a better solution would be to front a J4500 with a pair of
> X4100s with Sun Cluster? Hrrm...
That's a way better solution, since you can then build a clustered
solution for basically the same price. u should also think about using
2x J4400 instead of 1x J4500 to elimi
36 matches
Mail list logo
