Re: [zfs-discuss] sharesmb should be ignored if filesystem is not mounted

2010-11-04 Thread Alan Wright
On 11/ 4/10 03:54 AM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: On 10/28/10 08:40 AM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: I have sharesmb=on set for a bunch of filesystems, including three that weren't mounted. Nevertheless, all of those are advertised. Needless to say, the one that isn't mounted can't be accesse

[zfs-discuss] zfs record size implications

2010-11-04 Thread Rob Cohen
I have read some conflicting things regarding the ZFs record size setting. Could you guys verify/correct my these statements: (These reflect my understanding, not necessarily the facts!) 1) The ZFS record size in a zvol is the unit that dedup happens at. So, for a volume that is shared to an

Re: [zfs-discuss] [OpenIndiana-discuss] format dumps the core

2010-11-04 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
also, this last test was with two 160gig drives only, the 2TB drives and the SSD are all disconnected... - Original Message - > I somehow doubt the problem is the same - looks more like cfgadm can't > see my devices. I first tried with directly attached storage (1 SAS > cable to each disk

Re: [zfs-discuss] [OpenIndiana-discuss] format dumps the core

2010-11-04 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
I somehow doubt the problem is the same - looks more like cfgadm can't see my devices. I first tried with directly attached storage (1 SAS cable to each disk). Now, that has been replaced with a SAS expander (4xSAS to the expander, 12 drives on the expander). Format still dumps the core, and cfg

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS send/receive and locking

2010-11-04 Thread Byte Internet
The problem is not with how the replication is done. The locking happens during the basic zfs operations. We noticed: on server2 (which is quite busy serving maildirs) we did zfs create tank/newfs rsync 4GB from someotherserver to /tank/newfs zfs destroy tank/newfs Destroying newfs took more

Re: [zfs-discuss] sharesmb should be ignored if filesystem is not mounted

2010-11-04 Thread Richard L. Hamilton
> On 10/28/10 08:40 AM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > > I have sharesmb=on set for a bunch of filesystems, > > including three that weren't mounted. > Nevertheless, > all of those are advertised. Needless to say, > the one that isn't mounted can't be accessed > remotely, > even though since adve

[zfs-discuss] ZFS recovery tool for Solaris 10 with a dead slog?

2010-11-04 Thread Bryan Horstmann-Allen
I just had an SSD blow out on me, taking a v10 zpool with it. The pool currently shows up as UNAVAIL, "missing device". The system is currently running U9, which has `import -F`, but not `import -m`. My understanding is the pool would need to be >=19 for that to work regardless. I have copies of