On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 23:00, Will Murnane wrote:
> *sigh* The 9010b is ordered. Ground shipping, unfortunately, but
> eventually I'll post my impressions of it.
Well, the drive arrived today. It's as nice-looking as it appears in
the pictures, and building a zpool out of it alone makes for so
Jonny Gerold wrote:
> Hello,
> I have two local disks mounted on my system:
>
> Both are broken mirrors (I only have 2 sata ports, and need to move the
> data off one drive to the new drive)
>
> Mountpoints:
> /rpool-old
> - Filesystems -
> backup1
> bigmac-RAID
> hq-pbx
> therm7
>
> -- I have
Hello,
I have two local disks mounted on my system:
Both are broken mirrors (I only have 2 sata ports, and need to move the
data off one drive to the new drive)
Mountpoints:
/rpool-old
- Filesystems -
backup1
bigmac-RAID
hq-pbx
therm7
-- I have about 20 snapshots for each filesystem --
/rp
Hi,
If this is not a zfs question please direct me to the correct place
for this question.
I have a server with Solaris 10 u6 zfs root file system and Solaris 9
zones along with Solaris 10 zones.
What is the best way to configure the root file system of a Solaris 9
container WRT zfs file system
Something to do with cache was my first thought. It seems to be able
to read and write from the cache quite happily for some time,
regardless of whether the pool is live.
If you're reading or writing large amounts of data, zfs starts
experiencing IO faults and offlines the pool pretty quickly. I
> "re" == Richard Elling writes:
>> well, I think most backups are archival.
re> Disagree. Archives tend to not be overwritten, ever. Backups
re> have all sorts of management schemes to allow the backup media
re> to be reused.
The problem with storing 'zfs send' arises w
> "re" == Richard Elling writes:
>>
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-December/053894.html
re> Bzzt. Thanks for playing. That is: CR 6764193 was fixed in
re> b105 http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6764193 Is
re> there another?
I don't und
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Ross Smith wrote:
> I can check on Monday, but the system will probably panic... which
> doesn't really help :-)
>
> Am I right in thinking failmode=wait is still the default? If so,
> that should be how it's set as this testing was done on a clean
> install of sn
my last contribution to this thread (and there was much rejoicing!)
Miles Nordin wrote:
>> "re" == Richard Elling writes:
>>
>
> re> The reason is that zfs send/recv has very good application,
> re> even in the backup space. There are, in fact, many people
> re>
I can check on Monday, but the system will probably panic... which
doesn't really help :-)
Am I right in thinking failmode=wait is still the default? If so,
that should be how it's set as this testing was done on a clean
install of snv_106. From what I've seen, I don't think this is a
problem wi
Hi Sandro,
A ZFS root pool can only be created on a single-disk or mirrored disks.
Consider the following choices for the root pool:
1 disk
2 or 3 mirrored disks
2-way mirror of 2 disks
2 mirrored disks with 2 spares
In ZFS land, /usr is not a separate file system nor does it need
a separate di
> "re" == Richard Elling writes:
re> The reason is that zfs send/recv has very good application,
re> even in the backup space. There are, in fact, many people
re> using it.
[...]
re> ZFS send is not an archival solution. You should use an
re> archival method which is a
Ross, this is a pretty good description of what I would expect when
failmode=continue. What happens when failmode=panic?
-- richard
Ross wrote:
> Ok, it's still happening in snv_106:
>
> I plugged a USB drive into a freshly installed system, and created a single
> disk zpool on it:
> # zpool cre
Just another thought off the back of this, would it be possible to modify zpool
status to also:
- Generate a warning if a pool has not been exported cleanly. State that
there's possible data loss.
- Check /var/adm/messages, or fma, and warn if there have been any messages
related to drives att
Ok, it's still happening in snv_106:
I plugged a USB drive into a freshly installed system, and created a single
disk zpool on it:
# zpool create usbtest c1t0d0
I opened the (nautilus?) file manager in gnome, and copied the /etc/X11 folder
to it. I then copied the /etc/apache folder to it, and
Ok, I noticed somebody's flagged the bug as 'retest', I don't know whether
that's aimed at Sun or myself, but either way I'm installing snv_106 on a test
machine now and will check whether this is still an issue.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Hi folks
I have a system currently running ufs with four disks
/ is a mirror of two disks and /usr is a mirror of two disks.
I was wondering if such a config is still possible with zfs boot?
The disks are only 18gigs, that's why I would like to spread solaris over four
disks - or two mirrored
17 matches
Mail list logo
