On 08/13/10 09:02 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote:
Erast wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they
2010/8/13 "C. Bergström" :
> Erast wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
>>>
>>> I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
>>> get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fac
On 8/13/10 9:02 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> Erast wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
>>>
>>> I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
>>> get it. The part that's most disturbing to m
Erast wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be
releasing nightly snapshots. It app
On 8/13/2010 at 8:56 PM Eric D. Mudama wrote:
|On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
|>Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of
|>OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most
interesting
|>and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at t
I'm confused. I have compression enabled on a ZFS filesystem, which
contains for all intents and purposes, just a single 20G file, and I see ...
# ls -lh somefile
-rw--- 1 root root 20G Aug 13 17:41 somefile
# du -h somefile
5.6G somefile
(Sounds like approx 25-3
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
>
> I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris.
What rock do you live under?
Very few people would bother paying for solaris/zfs if they couldn't try it
for fre
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:03, Frank Cusack wrote:
On 8/13/10 3:39 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote:
Quite frankly, I think there will be an even faster decline of Solaris
installed base after this move. I know I have no interest in pushing it
anywhere after this mess.
I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of
OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense?
These distributions are, in theory, th
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
>
>I am looking for references of folks using ZFS with either NFS
> or iSCSI as the backing store for VMware (4.x) backing store for
> virtual machines.
Since I had ulterio
On 8/14/10 4:01 AM +0700 "C. Bergström" wrote:
Gary Mills wrote:
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with
On 8/13/10 3:39 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote:
Quite frankly, I think there will be an even faster decline of Solaris
installed base after this move. I know I have no interest in pushing it
anywhere after this mess.
I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris.
__
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I'm interested to see how this plays out in actuality. It almost
sounded like source code wouldn't necessarily be shared until major
release were made... which would obviously make it hard for third party
ZFS vendors to "keep up" in the interim.
You
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:01:07PM -0700, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> Gary Mills wrote:
> > If this information is correct,
> >
> > http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
> >
> > further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
> > Opensolaris will become the interna
NFS doesn't care if the access is for a ZFS file system
on systems running Solaris 9 or Solaris 10.
This isn't a tmp or lofs mount point, is it?
If not, I would check the permissions on the client's
/nfs/backup directory.
Thanks,
Cindy
On 08/13/10 14:33, Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) wrote:
Cin
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Erast wrote:
>
>
> On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
>>
>> I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
>> get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact t
Gary Mills wrote:
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with no public distributions. The community has been
On Aug 13, 2010, at 16:39, Tim Cook wrote:
I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just
doesn't get it.
Why are you surprised? Larry Ellison is about making money, not
community. He's been fairly successful at it as well.
Sun was an engineering company at its heart; Oracl
On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be
releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've s
On 13-8-2010 22:43, Gary Mills wrote:
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with no public distributions.
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with no public distributions. The community has been abandoned.
--
-Ga
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't get
it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be
releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its
tracks before it reall
Hi Phillip,
What's the error message?
How did you share the ZFS file system?
# zfs create tank/cindys
# zfs sharenfs=on tank/cindys
# share
- /tank/cindys rw ""
# cp /usr/dict/words /tank/cindys/file.1
# cd /tank/cindys
# chmod 666 file.1
# ls -l file.1
-rw-rw-rw- 1 root
On Aug 12, 2010, at 7:03 PM, valrh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Has anyone bought one of these cards recently? It seems to list for
> around $170 at various places, which seems like quite a decent deal. But
> no well-known reputable vendor I know seems to sell these, and I want to
> be able to have some
I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
The client is Solaris 9 U7.
I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
the dfstab file has option rw set.
So what gives?
Phillip
--
This message posted from opensolar
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Handojo wrote:
>> Are the old /opt and /expore still listed in your
>> vfstab(4) file?
>
> I cant access /etc/vfstab because I can't even log in as my username. I can't
> even log in as root from the Login Screen
>
> And when I boot on using LiveCD, how can I moun
> Are the old /opt and /expore still listed in your
> vfstab(4) file?
I cant access /etc/vfstab because I can't even log in as my username. I can't
even log in as root from the Login Screen
And when I boot on using LiveCD, how can I mount my first drive that has
opensolaris installed ?
--
This
On Fri, August 13, 2010 12:35, Handojo wrote:
> Hi
> I am moving /opt and /export to a newly created zpool named 'dpool'
>
> The steps I am working on might be wrong, but here is my step :
>
> I renamed /export to /export2
> I renamed /opt to /opt2
[...]
> But when I reboot, the system is unable to
On Fri, August 13, 2010 11:39, F. Wessels wrote:
> I wasn't planning to buy any SSD as a ZIL. I merely acknowledged that an
> sandforce with supercap MIGHT be a solution. At least the supercap should
> take care of the data loss in case of a power failure. But they are still
> in the consumer realm
Hi
I am moving /opt and /export to a newly created zpool named 'dpool'
The steps I am working on might be wrong, but here is my step :
I renamed /export to /export2
I renamed /opt to /opt2
I create dpool and mount it to /opt
Then I create another ZFS mount point : dpool/export and mount it on /
I wasn't planning to buy any SSD as a ZIL. I merely acknowledged that an
sandforce with supercap MIGHT be a solution. At least the supercap should take
care of the data loss in case of a power failure. But they are still in the
consumer realm have not been picked up by the enterprise (yet) for w
> -Original Message-
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
> [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eff Norwood
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:26 AM
> To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
>
> Don't waste your time with so
Don't waste your time with something other than the DDRdrive for NFS ZIL. If
it's RAM based it might work, but why risk it and if it's an SSD forget it. No
SSD will work well for the ZIL long term. Short term the only SSD to consider
would be Intel, but again long term even that will not work ou
Yes, the sandforce based ssd's are also interesting. I think both, the 1500
sure can, could be fitted with the necessary supercap to prevent dataloss in
case of unexpected power loss. And the 1500 based models will available with a
SAS interface needed for clustering. Something the DDRdrive cann
On Fri, August 13, 2010 07:52, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> If you have ZIL disabled, then sync=async. Up to 30sec of all writes are
> lost. Period.
>
> But there is no corruption or data written out-of-order. The end result
> is as-if you halted the server suddenly, flushed all the buffers to di
On Fri, August 13, 2010 07:21, F. Wessels wrote:
> I fully agree with your post. NFS is much simpler in administration.
> Although I don't have any experience with the DDRdrive X1, I've read and
> heard from various people actually using them that it's the best
> "available" SLOG device. Before eve
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Chris Twa
>
> My plan now is to buy the ssd's and do extensive testing. I want to
> focus my performance efforts on two zpools (7x146GB 15K U320 + 7x73GB
> 10k U320). I'd really like two ssd'
I fully agree with your post. NFS is much simpler in administration.
Although I don't have any experience with the DDRdrive X1, I've read and heard
from various people actually using them that it's the best "available" SLOG
device. Before everybody starts yelling "ZEUS" or "LOGZILLA". Was anybod
Thanks for the link; as a result, I learned how to use dd to get some better
data on transfer rates, which was extremely helpful. I guess you can fit the
card in standard PCIe slot with some spacers, but does anyone have any specific
info on this?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Il giorno 13/ago/2010, alle ore 03.03, Marty Scholes ha scritto:
> Script attached.
thanks :)
--
Simone Caldana
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
40 matches
Mail list logo
