I have a pool with zvolume (Opensolaris b134)
When I try zpool destroy tank I get "pool is busy"
# zpool destroy -f tank
cannot destroy 'tank': pool is busy
When I try destroy zvolume first I get " dataset is busy"
# zfs destroy -f tank/macbook0-data
cannot destroy 'tank/macbook0-data': datase
On 8/17/10 3:17 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote:
If Oracle really wants to keep it out of Linux, that means it wants
to keep it out of FreeBSD also. Either way, to keep it out it needs
to make it closed source, and as they say, the genie is already out
of the bottle.
I don't agree that there's a licens
ZFSfolk,
Pardon the slightly offtopic post, but I figured this would be a good
forum to get some feedback.
I am looking at implementing zfs group quotas on some X4540s and
X4140/J4400s, 64GB of RAM per server, running Solaris 10 Update 8
servers with IDR143158-06.
There is one large filesystem p
On Jul 9, 2010, at 4:27 AM, George wrote:
>> I think it is quite likely to be possible to get
>> readonly access to your data, but this requires
>> modified ZFS binaries. What is your pool version?
>> What build do you have installed on your system disk
>> or available as LiveCD?
For the record
On Aug 4, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Dmitry Sorokin wrote:
>
> I'm in the same situation as Darren - my log SSD device died completely.
> Victor, could you please explain how did you "mocked up log device in a
> file" so zpool status started to show the device with UNAVAIL status?
> I lost the latest zp
Oh, as an insmod, I think the question is quite cloudy indeed, since you
get into questions about what forms a derivative product.
I was looking at the original statement of the two licenses running
together in the same program far too simply of course when
considered with dynamic link (whic
> "gd" == Garrett D'Amore writes:
>> Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right
>> alongside the GPLv2 kernel code and run in the same program.
gd> My understanding is that no, this is not possible.
GPLv2 and CDDL are incompatible:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/e
On 08/18/10 08:40 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
On 08/18/10 12:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
If you have an orthogonal architecture like sparc, a typical 64 bit program is
indeed a bit slower than the same program in 32 bit.
On Amd64,
Hi Mark,
I would recheck with fmdump to see if you have any persistent errors
on the second disk.
The fmdump command will display faults and fmdump -eV will display
errors (persistent faults that have turned into errors based on some
criteria).
If fmdump -eV doesn't show any activity for that
Ian Collins wrote:
> On 08/18/10 12:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Ian Collins wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> If you have an orthogonal architecture like sparc, a typical 64 bit
> >>> program is
> >>> indeed a bit slower than the same program in 32 bit.
> >>>
> >>> On Amd64, you have twice as many
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Frank Cusack
wrote:
> On 8/17/10 9:14 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
>
>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
>>>
No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
re-re
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 14:04 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote:
> > >
> > > And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright
> > > holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some
> > > just will
On 08/18/10 12:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
If you have an orthogonal architecture like sparc, a typical 64 bit program is
indeed a bit slower than the same program in 32 bit.
On Amd64, you have twice as many registers in 64 bit mode and this is the
reason for a typica
On 8/17/10 3:31 PM +0900 BM wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek
wrote:
Disclaimer: I use Reiser4
A "Killer FS"™. :-)
LOL
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-
On 8/17/10 9:14 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack
wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
You're saying Oracle
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 14:04 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote:
> >
> > And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright
> > holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some
> > just will not budge.
>
> Joerg is correct that
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote:
And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright
holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some
just will not budge.
Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right alongside the
GPLv2 kernel code and run in
On 17-Aug-10, at 1:05 PM, Andrej Podzimek wrote:
I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I
often read
them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on
this topic
yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples:
(1) http://www.phoronix.com/sc
I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read
them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic
yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples:
(1) http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_ext4_btrfs&num=1
My littl
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:13 AM, David Magda wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2010, at 19:39, Kevin Walker wrote:
>
>> I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass rambled
>> on
>> about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting into
>> cloud
>> computing and in his opinio
Hi Brian,
is it still relevant?
On 02.08.10 21:07, Brian Merrell wrote:
Cindy,
Thanks for the quick response. Consulting ZFS history I note the
following actions:
"imported" my three disk raid-z pool originally created on the most
"recent" version of OpenSolaris but now running NexantaSto
On Aug 17, 2010, at 5:44 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg
Schilling) wrote:
> Frank Cusack wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
>>> No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
>>> re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive adva
On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
>> No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
>> re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
>
> You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux?
I w
Ian Collins wrote:
> > If you have an orthogonal architecture like sparc, a typical 64 bit program
> > is
> > indeed a bit slower than the same program in 32 bit.
> >
> > On Amd64, you have twice as many registers in 64 bit mode and this is the
> > reason for a typical performance gain of ~ 30%
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Will Murnane
>
> > I am surprised with the performances of some 64-bit multi-threaded
> > applications on my AMD Opteron machine. For most of the applications,
> > the performance of 32-bit v
On 08/17/10 09:43 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
It can be as simple as impact on the cache. 64-bit programs tend to be
bigger, and so they have a worse effect on the i-cache.
Unless your program does something that can inherently benefit from
64-bit registers, or ca
On 16 Aug 2010, at 23:11, Andrej Podzimek wrote:
>
> My only point was: There is no published report saying that stability or
> *performance* of Btrfs will be worse (or better) than that of ZFS. This is
> because nobody can guess how Btrfs will perform once it's finished. (In fact
> nobody eve
BM wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek wrote:
I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read
them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic
yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples:
(1) http://www
Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
> > No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
> > re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
>
> You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux?
In order to get zfs into Linux,
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> It can be as simple as impact on the cache. 64-bit programs tend to be
> bigger, and so they have a worse effect on the i-cache.
>
> Unless your program does something that can inherently benefit from
> 64-bit registers, or can take advantage of the richer instruction
Miles Nordin wrote:
> dd> 2 * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle. All rights reserved.
> dd> 3 *
> dd> 4 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> dd> 5 * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
> dd> 6 * License v2 as published by the Free Sof
31 matches
Mail list logo
