Re: [zfs-discuss] SXCE, ZFS root, b101 -> b103, wierd zfs list ?

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Turanga Leela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been playing with liveupgrade for the first time. (See > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=315231). I've at least > got a workaround for that issue. > > One strange thing i've noticed, however, is

[zfs-discuss] SXCE, ZFS root, b101 -> b103, wierd zfs list ?

I've been playing with liveupgrade for the first time. (See http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=315231). I've at least got a workaround for that issue. One strange thing i've noticed, however, is after I luactivate the new environmentalism (snv_103) the root pool snapshots tha

[zfs-discuss] (no subject)

-- * Chris Dikranis * Proactive Support Engineer (ANZ) *Sun Microsystems, Inc.* 476 St. Kilda Road Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia Phone x47041/+613 98640 041 Mobile +61 403 494 472 Fax +61 3 9869 6290 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] _

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vdev labels and EFI disk labels

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Elaine Ashton wrote: > If I fdisk 2 disks to have EFI partitions and label them with the > appropriate partition beginning at sector 34 and then give them to ZFS > for a pool, ZFS would appear to change the beginning sector to 256. Right. This is done deliberately so that w

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS resize partitions

Lol ;D I didn't not see that was the root pool... -C -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de gsorin Envoyé : mardi 9 décembre 2008 20:49 À : zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Objet : Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS resize partitions Well, when I wanted to expo

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS resize partitions

Well, when I wanted to export and import the partition, the root partition said it was busy (obviously) and I tried using a secondary attached hdd. By miracle, the zpool increased the size automatically after the reboot. So, it's that simple. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vdev labels and EFI disk labels

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, elaine ashton wrote: > Thanks! That'd be great as I have an snv_79 system that doesn't exhibit > this behaviour so I'll assume that this has been added in sometime > between that release and 101a? According to the CR, the putback went into build 66. external link: http://bug

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vdev labels and EFI disk labels

On 09 Dec, 2008, at 14:04, Mark J Musante wrote: > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Elaine Ashton wrote: > >> If I fdisk 2 disks to have EFI partitions and label them with the >> appropriate partition beginning at sector 34 and then give them to >> ZFS for a pool, ZFS would appear to change the beginning

Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris vs Linux

Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your data is surely out of date. Windows itself inserts "anti-virus" > type checking into your application as it runs. Windows executes your > application slower with each new service pack update and more and more > run-time safety checks are added

[zfs-discuss] ZFS vdev labels and EFI disk labels

I'm running snv_101a and have been seeing some unexpected behaviour with ZFS and EFI disk labels. If I fdisk 2 disks to have EFI partitions and label them with the appropriate partition beginning at sector 34 and then give them to ZFS for a pool, ZFS would appear to change the beginning sector

[zfs-discuss] mismatched replication level question

When I attempt to create a 46 disk pool with 5 and 6 disk raidz vdevs, I get the following message: mismatched replication level: both 5-way and 6-way raidz vdevs are present mismatched replication level: both 6-way and 5-way raidz vdevs are present I expect this is correct.[1] But what does it

Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris vs Linux

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, russell aspinwall wrote: > The tests were repeated just to make sure. Unfortunately until > software is built and tested on Solaris 10, people tend to assume > Windows is faster. The above tests were completed with no virus > scanner installed as not to distort the results.

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool "cannot replace a replacing device"

I have another drive on the way, which will be handy in the future, but it doesn't solve the problem that zfs wont let me manipulate that pool in a manner that will return it to a non-degraded state, (even with a replacement drive or hot spare, i have already tried adding a spare) and I don't ha

Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with ZFS and ACL with GDM

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 09:09:15AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >When I switch away from a session where programs are producing sound > >what should happen is this: a) those programs continue to operate, b) > >but they don't produce actual sound until I switch back to that VT (and > >unlock th

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs is a co-dependent parent and won't let children leave home

>> we should either promote immediately on creation, or perhaps beadm destroy >> could do the promotion behind the covers. >> - Tim > If I understand this right, the latter option looks > better to me. Why > consume the disk space before you have to? > What does LU do? > -Kyle However, if you

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs is a co-dependent parent and won't let children leave home

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tim Haley wrote: > > ludelete doesn't handle this any better than beadm destroy does, it > fails for the same reasons. lucreate does not promote the clone it > creates when a new BE is spawned, either. Live upgrade's luactivate command is meant to promote the BE during init 6

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs is a co-dependent parent and won't let children leave home

Kyle McDonald wrote: > Tim Haley wrote: >> Ross wrote: >> >>> While it's good that this is at least possible, that looks horribly >>> complicated to me. >>> Does anybody know if there's any work being done on making it easy to >>> remove obsolete >>> boot environments? >>> >> If the cl

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs is a co-dependent parent and won't let children leave home

Tim Haley wrote: > Ross wrote: > >> While it's good that this is at least possible, that looks horribly >> complicated to me. >> Does anybody know if there's any work being done on making it easy to remove >> obsolete >> boot environments? >> > > If the clones were promoted at the time

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs is a co-dependent parent and won't let children leave home

Ross wrote: > While it's good that this is at least possible, that looks horribly > complicated to me. > Does anybody know if there's any work being done on making it easy to remove > obsolete > boot environments? If the clones were promoted at the time of their creation the BEs would stay i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450

I can tell you a little about Windows VSS snapshots compared to ZFS ones, since one of the main reasons I'm so interested in ZFS is because windows snapshots are so useless. For windows VSS: * You have OS overhead for taking the snapshot, as opposed to it being instantaneous for ZFS. Microsoft

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs is a co-dependent parent and won't let children leave home

While it's good that this is at least possible, that looks horribly complicated to me. Does anybody know if there's any work being done on making it easy to remove obsolete boot environments? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] cp: Operation not supported

Hi All, We have set up a zpool on OpenSolaris 2008.11, but have difficulties copying files with special chars in the name when the name is encoded in ISO8859-15. When the name is in UTF8 we don't have this problem. We get "Operation not supported". We want to copy the files with their name in IS

Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris vs Linux

Hi, A couple of years ago I compared Solaris 10 and XP x64 on the same hardware (dual opteron) running the same analytical cases. Each OS had a clean install before use :- Case CPU time System Time Lapse Bits OS No Secs Secs hh:mm:ss 1 5890

Re: [zfs-discuss] HP Smart Array and b99?

sim wrote: > OK, > > In the end I managed to install OpenSolaris snv_101b on hp blade on smart > array drive directly from install cd. Everything is fine. The problems I > experienced with hangs on boot on snv_99+ is related to Qlogic driver, but > this is a different story. > > Hi Simon,

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool "cannot replace a replacing device"

No, there won't be anything on the drive, I was just wondering if ZFS might get confused seeing a disk it knows about, but with no data on there. To be honest, on a single parity raid array with that many drives, I'd be buying another drive straight away. You've got no protection for your data ri

Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with ZFS and ACL with GDM

>On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 04:46:37PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote: >> >Is there a shortcomming in VT here? >> >> I guess it depends on how you think VT should work. My understanding >> is that VT works on a first-come-first-serve basis, so the first user >> who calls logindevperm interfaces gets pe

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS resize partitions

gsorin 写道: > Hello, > > I have the following issue: > > I'm running solaris 10 in a vmware enviroment. I have a virtual hdd of 8gig > (for example). At some point I can increase the hard drive to 10gig. How can > I resize the ZFS pool to take advantage of the new available space? > The same quest