On 04.03.2010, at 02:57, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
I see lots and lots of zfs traffic on the discussion list "freebsd...@freebsd.org
". This is where the FreeBSD filesystem developers hang out.
Thanks - I'll have a look there. As usual, the cool kids are in
mailing lists... ;-)
The zpool st
> "a" == ace writes:
a> Miles, AMD and intel's new xeon with the integrated memory
a> controller ought to behave and interact with opensolaris the
a> same way, yes?
No, I think they'd interact differently. The interaction is
``reporting errors'' I guess. I think each major
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Heßmann wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I don't know how to proceed now. It feels like my system is
>> in a very unstable state right now, with a replacement not yet finished and
>> err
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> I don't think it will work as well for you as you think it will; I think
> you'll then find yourself complaining that backup systems don't work, and
> indexing systems don't work, and this doesn't work, and that doesn't work,
> all because you've brok
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Heßmann wrote:
I've already written this on the FreeBSD forums, but so far, the feedback is
not so great - seems FreeBSD guys aren't that keen on ZFS. I have some hopes
I see lots and lots of zfs traffic on the discussion list
"freebsd...@freebsd.org". This is
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 06:59 -0800, Vladimir Leitenberger wrote:
> Hmm is it pissoble to upgrade my current zfs version to the new one, without
> updating whole system (pkg image-update)?
>
> The Problem is, i've made 5.1 Gb free space and tried to make a normal
> update, but upgrading from 111b
Yes, you are correct. Thanks.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Thanks for the info everyone!
I will now setup scrubbing and verify ecc alerts.
Miles, AMD and intel's new xeon with the integrated memory controller ought to
behave and interact with opensolaris the same way, yes?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Thanks Miles, I'll take a look.
Cheers,
Simon
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> "sb" == Simon Breden writes:
sb> ASUS M2N-SLI DELUXE ACPI BIOS
If it is AMD then:
http://ar.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=345422#345422
scripts need 'setpci' for solaris:
http://blogs.sun.com/thebentzone/entry/compiling_pciutils_lspci_on_solaris
(untested)
also k
Hello guys,
I've already written this on the FreeBSD forums, but so far, the
feedback is not so great - seems FreeBSD guys aren't that keen on ZFS.
I have some hopes you'll be more experienced on these kind of errors:
I have a ZFS pool comprised of two 3-disk RAIDs which I've recently
mo
Erwin Panen wrote:
Ian, thanks for replying.
I'll give cfgadm | grep sata a go in a minute.
At the mo I've rebooted from 2009.06 livecd. Of course I can't import
rpool because it's a newer zfs version :-(
Any way to update zfs version on a running livecd?
No, if you can get a failsafe session
Ian, thanks for replying.
I'll give cfgadm | grep sata a go in a minute.
At the mo I've rebooted from 2009.06 livecd. Of course I can't import
rpool because it's a newer zfs version :-(
Any way to update zfs version on a running livecd?
Thanks for helping out!
Erwin
Ian Collins wrote:
Erwin
I ran smbios and for the memory-related section I saw the following:
IDSIZE TYPE
6415 SMB_TYPE_MEMARRAY (physical memory array)
Location: 3 (system board or motherboard)
Use: 3 (system memory)
ECC: 3 (none)
Number of Slots/Sockets: 4
Memory Error Data: Not Supported
Max Capa
Erwin Panen wrote:
Richard, thanks for replying;
I seem to have complicated matters:
I shutdown the system (past midnight here :-) )and seeing your reply
come in, fired it up again to further test.
The system wouldn't come up anymore (dumped in maintenance shell) as
it would try to import both
Richard, thanks for replying;
I seem to have complicated matters:
I shutdown the system (past midnight here :-) )and seeing your reply
come in, fired it up again to further test.
The system wouldn't come up anymore (dumped in maintenance shell) as it
would try to import both rpool systems (I gue
tem.
Within 'tank/media' I can create 'tank/media/music', 'tank/media/photo',
'tank/media/video' etc.
For the home file systems, I might create 'tank/home' and then nest
'tank/home/fred', 'tank/home/wilma' etc.
For easy, regular
Erwin Panen wrote:
Hi,
I'm not very familiar with manipulating zfs.
This is what happened:
I have an osol 2009.06 system on which I have some files that I need
to recover. Due to my ignorance and blindly testing, I have managed to
get this system to be unbootable... I know, my own fault.
So
You need the -R option to zpool import. Try the procedure documented here:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide#Resolving_ZFS_Mount_Point_Problems_That_Prevent_Successful_Booting
-- richard
On Mar 3, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Erwin Panen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not v
Hi,
I'm not very familiar with manipulating zfs.
This is what happened:
I have an osol 2009.06 system on which I have some files that I need to
recover. Due to my ignorance and blindly testing, I have managed to get
this system to be unbootable... I know, my own fault.
So now I have a second
On 03/03/2010 16:33, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 03/03/2010 15:19, Tomas Ögren wrote:
Memtest doesn't want potential errors to be hidden by ECC, so it
disables ECC to see them if they occur.
still it is valid question - is there a way under OS to check if ECC
is disab
The problem is that all disks I've seen so far, has been more fragile than
tapes (given a real disaster, such as a clumsy sysadmin, or a burning home
falling on top of them)... Trust me to knock over a disk.
//Svein
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Comments inline :
On Wednesday, March 03, 2010, at 06:35PM, "Svein Skogen"
wrote:
>
>However trying to wrap my head around solaris and backups (I'm used to
>FreeBSD) is now leaving me with a nasty headache, and still no closer to a
>real solution. I need something that on regular intervals pu
> "a" == ace writes:
a> However, further down "ECC" is identified as being "off". Yet
a> there is a column for "ECC Errs".
a> I don't know how to interpret this. Is ECC active or not?
``Short circuit a data line or preferably a parity bit data line on
one of the DDR memory m
Per Francois's response of 11:02 MT Yes adding the patch will free the
space on the file system.
From:
Francois Napoleoni
To:
Geoff Shipman
Cc:
Edward Ned Harvey
,
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
,
'Robert
So the question remains... if I install patch 14144{45}-09 (by a LU to
Solaris 10 upd 8) will that allow the filesystem (not an rpool) to free up
the space?
- Robert
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Geoff Shipman wrote:
> IDR's are fixes for troubles from the initial development state. The
> p
IDR's are fixes for troubles from the initial development state. The
patches noted are the official fixes.
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:03, Robert Loper wrote:
> Can you clarify what this "IDR" is? I do not have Sun Support on this
> specific server.
>
> - Robert Loper
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at
Can you clarify what this "IDR" is? I do not have Sun Support on this
specific server.
- Robert Loper
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Francois Napoleoni <
francois.napole...@sun.com> wrote:
> From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing the now
> obsolete IDR and rebooting wa
Yes iT will ...
But this can be a good time to initiate/justify that useful backup which
we never had time to do before :) .
F.
Geoff Shipman wrote:
Right it would get rid of the CR, but does it free the disk space from
an event that occurred prior to patching ?.
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:51
Yes i will ...
But this can be a good time to initiate/justify that useful backup which
we never had time to do before :) .
F.
Geoff Shipman wrote:
Right it would get rid of the CR, but does it free the disk space from
an event that occurred prior to patching ?.
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10
Right it would get rid of the CR, but does it free the disk space from
an event that occurred prior to patching ?.
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:51, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
> From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing the now
> obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get ride
Hi Stephen
If your system is crashing while attaching the new device,
are you getting a core dump file?
If so, it would be interesting to examine the file with mdb,
to see the stack backtrace, as this may give a clue to what's going wrong.
What storage controller you are using for the disks?
An
From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing the now
obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get ride of these sparse file bug.
F.
Geoff Shipman wrote:
The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701 included. This is part
of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86)
The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701 included. This is part
of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86). For OpenSolaris
build 118 or later contains the fix so in the development builds.
This avoids future problems with the CR but if your currently effected
by the problem
Until now, I've ran Windows Storage server 2008, but the ... lack of iSCSI
performance has gotten me so fed up that I've now moved all the files off the
server, to install opensolaris with two zpools, and nfs+smb+iSCSI sharing
towards my windows clients, and vmware ESXi boxes (two of them). So f
On Wed, March 3, 2010 10:23, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> It's the normal way to do it; not sure where in the Linux world it
>> arose,
>> but I first saw it in some early distribution. It's done automatically
>> by
>> "adduser". In my perception, it'
Sorrymy, mistake, i did not checked this one for a while ... patch for
this CR is 14144{45}-09 aka Solaris 10 update 8 kernel parch.
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I am running the same
version of OS you are, and this bug could affect us. Do you have an
Hi,
following the zfs best practise guide, my understanding is that neither choice
is very good. There is maybe a third choice, that is
pool
--vdev1
--disk
--disk
.
--disk
...
--vdev n
--disk
--disk
.
--
If you have a valid Solaris Support contract you can ask for the
corresponding IDR to fix this issue.
(Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling right now :) )
F.
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I am running the same
version of OS you are, and this bug co
Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 03/03/2010 15:19, Tomas Ögren wrote:
Memtest doesn't want potential errors to be hidden by ECC, so it
disables ECC to see them if they occur.
still it is valid question - is there a way under OS to check if ECC is
disabled or enabled?
Maybe something in the
On 03/03/2010 15:19, Tomas Ögren wrote:
Memtest doesn't want potential errors to be hidden by ECC, so it
disables ECC to see them if they occur.
still it is valid question - is there a way under OS to check if ECC is
disabled or enabled?
--
Robert Milkowski
http://milek.blogspot.com
On 03/03/10 05:19, Matt Keenan wrote:
In a multipool environment, would be make sense to add swap to a pool outside or
the root pool, either as the sole swap dataset to be used or as extra swap ?
Yes. I do it routinely, primarily to preserve space on boot disks on
large-memory systems.
swap
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> It's the normal way to do it; not sure where in the Linux world it arose,
> but I first saw it in some early distribution. It's done automatically by
> "adduser". In my perception, it's "best practice". So the question is,
> why do you NOT want to
Sorry for double-post. This thread was posted separately to
opensolaris-help and zfs-discuss. So I'm replying to both lists.
> I'm wondering what the possibilities of two-way replication are for a
> ZFS storage pool.
Based on all the description you gave, I wouldn't call this two-way
replicati
I don't know the answer to your question, but I am running the same version
of OS you are, and this bug could affect us. Do you have any link to any
documentation about this bug? I'd like to forward something to inform the
other admins at work.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
On Tue, March 2, 2010 15:12, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Hmmm; the "lack of flexibility" you talk about comes from not using the
>> security model sensibly -- having per-person groups is very useful in
>> that security model.
>
> I have 70 odd thousand
On 03 March, 2010 - casper@sun.com sent me these 0,8K bytes:
>
> >Is there a method to view the status of the rams ecc single or double bit
> >errors? I would like to
> confirm that ecc on my xeon e5520 and ecc ram are performing their role since
> memtest is ambiguous.
> >
> >
> >I am run
On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Abdullah Al-Dahlawi wrote:
> Greeting Richard
>
> After spending alomost 48 hours working on this problem, I believe I've
> discovered the BUG in Filebench !!!.
>
> I do not believe it is the change directory that you have indicated below
> cause this directory is u
>Is there a method to view the status of the rams ecc single or double bit
>errors? I would like to
confirm that ecc on my xeon e5520 and ecc ram are performing their role since
memtest is ambiguous.
>
>
>I am running memory test on a p6t6 ws, e5520 xeon, 2gb samsung ecc modules and
>this is w
Is there a method to view the status of the rams ecc single or double bit
errors? I would like to confirm that ecc on my xeon e5520 and ecc ram are
performing their role since memtest is ambiguous.
I am running memory test on a p6t6 ws, e5520 xeon, 2gb samsung ecc modules and
this is what is o
Hmm is it pissoble to upgrade my current zfs version to the new one, without
updating whole system (pkg image-update)?
The Problem is, i've made 5.1 Gb free space and tried to make a normal update,
but upgrading from 111b to current 133 is a huge jump. 1050 Mb must be
downloaded and the instal
>The default install for OpenSolaris creates a single root pool, and creates a
>swap and dump dataset within this pool.
>
>In a mutipool environment, would be make sense to add swap to a pool outside
>or
>the root pool, either as the sole swap dataset to be used or as extra swap ?
>
>Would this
On 3/03/10 11:19 PM, Matt Keenan wrote:
The default install for OpenSolaris creates a single root pool, and
creates a swap and dump dataset within this pool.
In a mutipool environment, would be make sense to add swap to a pool
outside or the root pool, either as the sole swap dataset to be used
The default install for OpenSolaris creates a single root pool, and creates a
swap and dump dataset within this pool.
In a mutipool environment, would be make sense to add swap to a pool outside or
the root pool, either as the sole swap dataset to be used or as extra swap ?
Would this have an
Hi all :)
I've been wanting to make the switch from XFS over RAID5 to ZFS/RAIDZ2 for some
time now, ever since I read about ZFS the first time. Absolutely amazing beast!
I've built my own little hobby server at home and have a boatload of disks in
different sizes that I've been using together t
I've just run zdb against the two pools on my home OpenSolaris box,
and now both are showing this failed assertion, with the counts off by one.
# zdb rpool >/dev/null
Assertion failed: object_count == usedobjs (0x18da2 == 0x18da3), file
../zdb.c, line 1460
Abort (core dumped)
# zdb rz2po
56 matches
Mail list logo
