myxi...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Bouncing a thread from the device drivers list:
> http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=357176
>
> Does anybody know if OpenSolaris will support this new Supermicro card,
> based on the Marvell 88SE6480 chipset? It's a true PCI Express 8 port
> JBOD SAS/
This is wrt Postgres 8.4 beta1 which has a new effective_io_concurrency
tunable which uses posix_fadvice
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/runtime-config-resource.html
(Go to the bottom)
Quote:
synchronous I/O depends on an effective |posix_fadvise| function, which
some operating sy
Richard Elling wrote:
Andrew Robb wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
Andrew Robb wrote:
I had to let this go and get on with testing DB2 on Solaris. I had
to abandon zfs on local discs in x64 Solaris 10 5/08.
This version does not have the modern write throttle code, which
should explain much of w
Richard Elling wrote:
Andrew Robb wrote:
I had to let this go and get on with testing DB2 on Solaris. I had to
abandon zfs on local discs in x64 Solaris 10 5/08.
This version does not have the modern write throttle code, which
should explain much of what you experience. The fix is available
i
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:34:57AM -0500, Patrick Skerrett wrote:
> I'm fighting with an identical problem here & am very interested in this
> thread.
>
> Solaris 10 127112-11 boxes running ZFS on a fiberchannel raid5 device
> (hardware raid).
You are about a year behind in kernel patches. The
My newly upgraded opensolaris 2008.11 laptop crashed last weekend.
(The OS was installed from the os 2008.11 live-cd and then upgraded
using the package manager to snv_111.)
I was trying to copy a large virtual pc image from my wife's imac to the
laptop. On a whim I had decided to create a separ
> "js" == Joerg Schilling writes:
js> So what is your point?
It was nothing to do with combinations of licenses within cdrkit, nor
within cdrtools.
It was that your changing your project's license to one incompatible
with the GPL led to the forking of a project, so it would be better
fo
Miles Nordin wrote:
...
> chooses the license, _and_ can change the license later (which Linux
> cannot, which sucks for mostly everyone). Please stop spreading FUD.
> Especially since you brought us through this exact same thing before
> the last time someone brought up dual-licensing.
Please
On 04/21/09 13:12, bob netherton wrote:
since I am trying to keep my pools at a version that different updates
can handle, I personally am glad it did not get rev'ed. I did get into
trouble recently that SX-CE 112 created a file system on an old pool
with a version newer than Solaris 10 lik
Hi Grant,
We have predefined ACL sets, which integrated into build 99.
With ZFS delegated permissions, you can create a permission set that can
be re-used.
See the example 9-2 here:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-2271/gbchv?l=en&q=permission+sets&a=view
zfs allow [-s] ... perm|@setname
Hi all,
Is there a simple way to grant blanket conditions to zpools? I know about the
individual commands, but I want to give our DBAs the permissions to snapshot,
clone, promote, rollback, rename, mount, etc. anything within their zpools.
I'm kind of new to delegations. Thanks.
___
since I am trying to keep my pools at a version that different updates
can handle, I personally am glad it did not get rev'ed. I did get into
trouble recently that SX-CE 112 created a file system on an old pool
with a version newer than Solaris 10 likes :(
-o is your best friend ;-)I
> "js" == Joerg Schilling writes:
js> Do you really like Sun to be forced to verify that the kind of
js> such a patch is below the interlectual creation level to be
js> able to claim a copyright?
the common and IMHO correct practice, and the practice Sun actually
uses, is to assu
On 04/21/09 11:08, Andrew Nicols on behalf of LUNS Root Output wrote:
All,
Is there anywhere which suggests what versions of zfs and zpool will make
it into Solaris 10 update 7 05/09 next month? I'm currently running Update
6 on an x4500 but would really like to have the new zpool scrub code
rel
A very basic question. I have in recent releases of opensolaris found that
a script I use to create large number of account home directories has been
failing because the script attempts to create and modify the directories
after the zfs create only to find that there is no directory. This is in
s
>If there were permanently bad memory locations, surely the diagnostics
>would reveal them. Here's an interesting paper on memory errors:
>http://www.ece.rochester.edu/~mihuang/PAPERS/hotdep07.pdf
>Given the inevitability of relatively frequent transient memory
>errors, I would think it behooves
On 04/17/09 12:37, casper@sun.com wrote:
I'd like to submit an RFE suggesting that data + checksum be copied for
mirrored writes, but I won't waste anyone's time doing so unless you
think there is a point. One might argue that a machine this flaky should
be retired, but it is actually working
All,
Is there anywhere which suggests what versions of zfs and zpool will make
it into Solaris 10 update 7 05/09 next month? I'm currently running Update
6 on an x4500 but would really like to have the new zpool scrub code
released in version 11.
Thanks in advance,
Andrew
--
Systems Developer
I'm fighting with an identical problem here & am very interested in this
thread.
Solaris 10 127112-11 boxes running ZFS on a fiberchannel raid5 device
(hardware raid).
Randomly one lun on a machine will stop writing for about 10-15 minutes
(during a busy time of day), and then all of a sudde
There was a prior discussion about doing HA-NFS by using zfs
send/recv to replicate the failover system's independent storage, and
the conclusion was that it wasn't doable because NFS needs identical
fsids on both systems. But zfs send/recv generates a different fsid
on the failover, and that r
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> To be more clear, standard GPL provides the option for the user to use
> any later version. The Linux kernel uses a modified verison of GPLv2
Such an option is illegal in Europe anyway - you cannot agree with a contract
that you don't know.
> Due to this, ZFS would n
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Tim wrote:
> >
> > Oracle: It should be an interesting ride to say the least. I guess we'll
> > see just how much they love linux... either zfs et. all will become GPL, or
> > we'll see their true colors. I'm secretly hoping for the latter (as long
22 matches
Mail list logo
