Adam Cheal wrote:
I thought you had just set
set xpv_psm:xen_support_msi = -1
which is different, because that sets the
xen_support_msi variable
which lives inside the xpv_psm module.
Setting mptsas:* will have no effect on your system
if you do not
have an mptsas card installed. The mptsas ca
For future generations of google searchers -
I solved my problem by backing up and deleting my source fat32 filesystem. Once
the filesystem was rebuilt as NTFS, the rsync 2.6.9 error in the subject line
went away. My SXCE b127 opensolaris boxes now happily rsync back and forth from
ZFS and NTFS
>
> I thought you had just set
>
> set xpv_psm:xen_support_msi = -1
>
> which is different, because that sets the
> xen_support_msi variable
> which lives inside the xpv_psm module.
>
> Setting mptsas:* will have no effect on your system
> if you do not
> have an mptsas card installed. The mpts
Adam Cheal wrote:
Hi Adam,
thanks for this info. I've talked with my colleagues
in Beijing (since
I'm in Beijing this week) and we'd like you to try
disabling MSI/MSI-X
for your mpt instances. In /etc/system, add
set mpt:mpt_enable_msi = 0
then regen your boot archive and reboot.
I had alrea
> Hi Adam,
> thanks for this info. I've talked with my colleagues
> in Beijing (since
> I'm in Beijing this week) and we'd like you to try
> disabling MSI/MSI-X
> for your mpt instances. In /etc/system, add
>
> set mpt:mpt_enable_msi = 0
>
> then regen your boot archive and reboot.
>
I had alre
Adam Cheal wrote:
Thankyou for all who've procvided data about this. I've updated the
bugs mentioned earlier and I believe we can now make progress on
diagnosis.
The new synopsis (should show up on b.o.o tomorrow) is as follows:
6894775 mpt's msi support is suboptimal with xVM
FYI, as the or
Well, yes, to enable MPxIO. Which then requires a reboot.
What about hot-swapping out a disk that was in a ZFS pool? Without rebooting?
This was the answer I got early in November. Short version: It's fixed in SNV
126, but not in 10u8 -- which is what I cautioned against.
http://mail.opensol
Hi, I have a fresh install of opensolaris snv_111b. I'm having problems writing
to an e-sata drive. I have tried upgrading to svn127 and the problem persists.
BIOS set for AHCI. Motherboard uses a AMD 760G + SB700 chipset. Drive works
fine in linux and windows with ext3/4 or ntfs. I'd like to us
Trevor Pretty wrote:
Karl
Don't you just use stmsboot?
http://docs.sun.com/source/820-3223-14/SASMultipath.html#50511899_pgfId-1046940
Bruno
Next week I'm playing with a M3000 and a J4200 in the local NZ
distributor's lab. I had planned to just use the latest version of S10,
but if I get t
Karl
Don't you just use stmsboot?
http://docs.sun.com/source/820-3223-14/SASMultipath.html#50511899_pgfId-1046940
Bruno
Next week I'm playing with a M3000 and a J4200 in the local NZ
distributor's lab. I had planned to just use the latest version of
S10, but if I get the time I might play
Answered by own question...
When using the -n switch the output is truncated i.e. the d0 is not printed.
When actually adding the drives, the operation is as expected -
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discus
You can add to an existing pool using
zpool add tank raidz disk1 disk2 ...
By adding to an existing pool, you don't need to create new file structures.
Your existings structures get addtional space.
If you creat a separate pool then you have another pool which you then need to
decide how to
I'm looking to increase the size of the pool uses. I've installed 4 500Gb disks.
When I do a trial run of adding the drives to the pool, the follow is listed:
zpool add -n tank raidz c5t4d0 c5t5d0 c5t6d0 c5t7d0
would update 'tank' to the following configuration:
tank
raidz1
c5
I recently ran a scrub on a zpool, and it's showing that data was
repaired, but the drive doesn't have any read, write or checksum
errors. Is this normal behavior, or is something weird going on? All
the documentation examples (and posts to this list) show other errors.
pool: tank
state: ONLIN
This is an interesting discussion. It appears that there is indeed some work to
be done with manipulating spin up/down on subsections of an array, etc.
However, in terms of cost/performance for small systems, it may be simpler to
solve this with less programming and more hardware. The cost of a
15 matches
Mail list logo
