I should add that I have quite a lot of datasets:
and maybe I should also add that I'm still running an old zpool version in order
to keep the ability to boot snv_98:
aggis:~$ zpool upgrade
This system is currently running ZFS pool version 14.
The following pools are out of date, and can b
Of course I meant 2009.06 :-)
Trevor Pretty wrote:
BTW
Reading your bug.
I assumed you meant?
zfs set mountpoint=/home/pool tank
ln -s /dev/null /home/pool
I then tried on OpenSolaris 2008.11
r...@norton:~# zfs set mountpoint=
r...@norton:~# zfs set mountpoint=
On 9/22/2009 11:17 PM, Trevor Pretty wrote:
zfs set mountpoint=/home/pool tank
ln -s /dev/null /home/pool
ahha, I dumbed down the process too much (trying to make it simple to
reproduce).
the key is in the /Auto/pool snippet that i put in the CR, but switched to
/dev/null in the reproduce
BTW
Reading your bug.
I assumed you meant?
zfs set mountpoint=/home/pool tank
ln -s /dev/null /home/pool
I then tried on OpenSolaris 2008.11
r...@norton:~# zfs set mountpoint=
r...@norton:~# zfs set mountpoint=/home/pool tank
r...@norton:~# zpool export tank
r...@norton:~# rm -r /home/p
Jeremy
You sure?
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do%3Bjsessionid=32d28f683e21e4b5c35832c2e707?bug_id=6883885
BTW: I only found this by hunting for one of my bugs 6428437
and changing the URL!
I think the searching is broken - but using bugster has always been a
black art even when
I entered CR 6883885 at bugs.opensolaris.org.
someone closed it - not reproducible.
Where do i find more information, like which planet's gravitational
properties affect the zfs source code ??
--
Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./
___
zfs-di
http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/128_bit_storage_are_you
Trevor Pretty wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
Shu Wu wrote:
Hi pals, I'm now looking into zfs source and have been
puzzled about 128-bit. It's announced that ZFS is an 128-bit file
system. But what does 128-bit m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
Shu Wu wrote:
Hi pals, I'm now looking into zfs source and have been
puzzled about 128-bit. It's announced that ZFS is an 128-bit file
system. But what does 128-bit mean? Does that mean the addressing
capability is 2^128? But in the source, 'zp_size' (in 'stru
Hi pals, I'm now looking into zfs source and have been puzzled about
128-bit. It's announced that ZFS is an 128-bit file system. But what does
128-bit mean? Does that mean the addressing capability is 2^128? But in the
source, 'zp_size' (in 'struct znode_phys'), the file size in bytes, is
defined a
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:26:59 -0400
Richard Elling wrote:
> > That seems to differ quite a bit from what I've seen; perhaps I am
> > misunderstanding... is the "+ 1 block" of a different size than the
> > recordsize? With recordsize=1k:
> >
> > $ ls -ls foo
> > 2261 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root
I've had an interesting time with this over the past few days ...
After the resilver completed, I had the message "no known data errors" in a
zpool status.
I guess the title of my post should have been "how permanent are permanent
errors?". Now, I don't know whether the action of completing the
On 9/22/2009 1:55 PM, Jeremy Kister wrote:
(b) 2 of them have 268GB raw
26 HP 300GB SCA disks with mirroring + 2 hot spares
28 * 300G = 8.2T. Not 268G.
"Math class is tough!"
--
Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./
___
zfs-discuss mailin
On 9/18/2009 1:51 PM, Steffen Weiberle wrote:
# of systems
6 not including dozens of zfs root.
amount of storage
(a) 2 of them have 96TB raw,
46 WD SATA 2TB disks in two raidz2 pools + 2 hot spares
each raidz2 pool is on it's own shelf on it's own PCIx controller
(b) 2 of them have
comment below...
On Sep 22, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Jim Mauro wrote:
Cross-posting to zfs-discuss. This does not need to be on the
confidential alias. It's a performance query - there's nothing
confidential in here. Other folks post performance queries to
zfs-discuss
Forget %b - it's useless.
On Sep 22, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Andrew Deason wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:20:53 -0400
Richard Elling wrote:
On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:13:26 -0400
Richard Elling wrote:
You don't know the max overhead for the file before it is
allocated. You c
Tristan Ball wrote:
OK, Thanks for that.
From reading the RFE, it sound's like having a faster machine on the
receive side will be enough to alleviate the problem in the short term?
That's correct.
--matt
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@o
Hi
I've a situation that I cant find any answers to after searching docs etc.
I'm testing a DR process of installing solaris on to zfs mirror using rpool .
Then I am breaking the rpool mirror , recreating the none live half as newrpool
and restoring my backup to the none-live mirror disk via
Cross-posting to zfs-discuss. This does not need to be on the
confidential alias. It's a performance query - there's nothing
confidential in here. Other folks post performance queries to
zfs-discuss
Forget %b - it's useless.
It's not the bandwidth that's hurting you, it's the IOPS.
One of t
On 09/18/09 14:34, Jeremy Kister wrote:
On 9/18/2009 1:51 PM, Steffen Weiberle wrote:
I am trying to compile some deployment scenarios of ZFS.
# of systems
do zfs root count? or only big pools?
non root is more interesting to me. however, if you are sharing the root
pool with your data, w
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:20:53 -0400
Richard Elling wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:13:26 -0400
> > Richard Elling wrote:
> >
> >> You don't know the max overhead for the file before it is
> >> allocated. You could guess at a max of 3x size
cc'ing to storage-discuss where this topic also came up recently.
By default for most backing stores, COMSTAR will put its disk metadata
in the first 64K of the backing store as you say. So if you take a
backing store disk that is in use as an iscsitgt LUN and then run
"sbdadm create-lu /pa
OK, Thanks for that.
From reading the RFE, it sound's like having a faster machine on the
receive side will be enough to alleviate the problem in the short term?
The hardware I'm using at the moment is quite old, and not particularly
fast - although this is the first out & out performance lim
Hi Neil and all,
thank you very much for looking into this:
So I don't know what's going on. What is the typical call stack for those
zil_clean() threads?
I'd say they are all blocking on their respective CVs:
ff0009066c60 fbc2c0300 0 60 ff01d25e1180
PC:
23 matches
Mail list logo
