On 7/16/10 4:33 PM -0700 Johnson Earls wrote:
On 07/16/10 10:30 AM, Lori Alt wrote:
You can also run through the zones, doing 'zoneconfig -z info'
commands to look for datasets delegated to each zone.
That's not necessarily the current owner though, is it?
Lori,
Thanks for the reply.
By "floating" I mean we have a set of scripts that will shut down a zone,
export all the ZFS pools attached to that zone, modify the zone config to not
have those datasets associated anymore, then, on another system, import the ZFS
pools, modify the new zone's confi
On Jul 14, 2010, at 11:44 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On Wed, July 14, 2010 14:58, Daniel Taylor wrote:
>
>> I'm about the build a opensolaris NAS system, currently we have two drives
>> and are planning on adding two more at a later date (2TB enterprise level
>> HDD are a bit expensive!).
>
>
On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Peter Taps wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This is probably a very naive question.
>
> Is it possible to set zfs for bi-directional synchronization of data across
> two locations? I am thinking this is almost impossible. Consider two files A
> and B at two different sites. Ther
On 7/16/10 3:07 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Fri, July 16, 2010 14:07, Frank Cusack wrote:
On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
It would be nice to have applications request to be notified
before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested
notification have acknowle
"Sam Fourman Jr." wrote:
> using FreeBSD 9 w/ ZFSv15 using default settings, nothing in loader.conf
> or nothing in sysctl.conf and a GENERIC kernel
>
> 12GB of memory seems to be all ZFS wanted to use, I have tried
> machines with 32GB
> but zfs never wants to use more unless you play with loade
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Michael Johnson
wrote:
> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
> double-check
> how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you
> can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Michael Johnson wrote:
Just curious, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD
(as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about the OSs in
question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general?
The FreeBSD OS itself is normally leaner but Fr
On Fri, July 16, 2010 14:07, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> It would be nice to have applications request to be notified
>>> before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested
>>> notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot
>>
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:57 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote:
> us, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD
> (as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about
> the OSs in
> question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general?
Compared to Solaris, in my estimatio
Arne Jansen wrote:
Jordan McQuown wrote:
I’m curious to know what other people are running for HD’s in white
box systems? I’m currently looking at Seagate Barracuda’s and Hitachi
Deskstars. I’m looking at the 1tb models. These will be attached to
an LSI expander in a sc847e2 chassis driven by
On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
It would be nice to have applications request to be notified
before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested
notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot
would be taken; and then another notification sent that it was
t
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Michael Johnson
wrote:
> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
> double-check
> how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you
> can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 10:24 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
>>double-check
>> how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says
>you
>> can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 G
Jordan McQuown wrote:
I’m curious to know what other people are running for HD’s in white box
systems? I’m currently looking at Seagate Barracuda’s and Hitachi
Deskstars. I’m looking at the 1tb models. These will be attached to an
LSI expander in a sc847e2 chassis driven by an LSI 9211-8i HBA.
I'm curious to know what other people are running for HD's in white box
systems? I'm currently looking at Seagate Barracuda's and Hitachi Deskstars.
I'm looking at the 1tb models. These will be attached to an LSI expander in a
sc847e2 chassis driven by an LSI 9211-8i HBA. This system will be use
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend simply using stripe of mirrors.
You'll have better performance, and good resilience against errors. And
you can grow later as you need to by just adding additional drive pairs.
-- Garrett
Or in my case, I find my home dat
1GB isn't enough for a real system. 2GB is a bare minimum. If you're
going to use dedup, plan on a *lot* more. I think 4 or 8 GB are good
for a typical desktop or home NAS setup. With FreeBSD you may be able
to get away with less. (Probably, in fact.)
Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend sim
I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
double-check
how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you
can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen
someone
claim that you need at least 4 GB. Does anyone here
On Fri, July 16, 2010 08:39, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>> > It'd be handy to have a mechanism where
>> applications could register for
>> > snapshot notifications. When one is about to
>> happen, they could be told
>> > about it and do what they need to do. Once all the
>> applications have
>> >
On 07/14/10 05:45 PM, Johnson Earls wrote:
Hello,
How would I go about finding out which zone owns a particular dataset from a
script running in the global zone?
We have some ZFS datasets that can "float" between zones on different servers
in order to provide a manual application failov
On Jul 16, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> Of course, another approach would be for a zfs aware app to be
> keeping its storage on a dedicated filesystem or zvol, and itself
> control when snapshots were taken of that. As lightweight as
> zvols and filesystems are under zfs, having
The build is : Solaris 10 8/07 s10s_u4wos_12b SPARC
zfs version: v4
VER DESCRIPTION
---
1 Initial ZFS version
2 Ditto blocks (replicated metadata)
3 Hot spares and double parity RAID-Z
4 zpool history
thanks,
wen
Brandon High
> > It'd be handy to have a mechanism where
> applications could register for
> > snapshot notifications. When one is about to
> happen, they could be told
> > about it and do what they need to do. Once all the
> applications have
> > acknowledged the snapshot alert--and/or after a
> pre-set timeou
> never make it any better. Just for a record: Solaris
> 9 and 10 from Sun
> was a plain crap to work with, and still is
> inconvenient conservative
> stagnationware. They won't build a free cool tools
Everybody but geeks _wants_ stagnationware, if you means
something that just runs. Even my old
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>
> > It is true there's no new build published in the
> last 3 months. But you
> > can't use that to assume they're killing the
> community.
>
> Hmm, the community seems to think they're killing the
> community:
>
> http://developers.slashd
On 7/16/2010 5:54 AM, Ben wrote:
Hi all,
I currently have four drives in my OpenSolaris box. The drives are split into two
mirrors, one mirror containing my rpool (disks 1& 2) and one containing other data
(disks 2& 3).
I'm running out of space on my data mirror and am thinking of upgradin
Hi all,
I currently have four drives in my OpenSolaris box. The drives are split into
two mirrors, one mirror containing my rpool (disks 1 & 2) and one containing
other data (disks 2 & 3).
I'm running out of space on my data mirror and am thinking of upgrading it to
two 2TB disks. I then cons
> Losing ZFS would indeed be disastrous, as it would
> leave Solaris with
> only the Veritas File System (VxFS) as a semi-modern
> filesystem, and a
> non-native FS at that (i.e. VxFS is a 3rd-party
> for-pay FS, which
> severely inhibits its uptake). UFS is just way to old
> to be competitive
29 matches
Mail list logo
