>122660-10 does not have any issues that I am aware of. It is only
obsolete, not withdrawn. Additionally, it appears that the circular
patch dependency is by design if you read this BugID:
So how to do you get it to install?
I get...
#patchadd 122660-10
Validating patches...
Loading patche
It fails on my machine because it requires a patch that's deprecated.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. T
>> 1. My understanding of the situation is having a zpool on a single
LUN precludes some ZFS technology such as self-healing, hence is not
best practice. Right?
>For important data and when you have only one LUN (eg. arrays) using
copies is a way to manage your redundancy policies for each file
I've been presented with the following scenario:
- this is to be used primarily for ORACLE, including usage of ORACLE
RMAN backups (to disk)
- HP SAN (will NOT do JBOD)
- 256 Gb disk available on high-speed Fibre Channel disk, currently on
one LUN (1)
- 256 Gb disk available on slower-speed SATA
You should probably be doing a ZFS clone and backing that up.
> I am messing around with zfs snapshots, and was wondering if it is
> possible to mount a zfs snapshot. I would like to use this snapshot
to
> backup to tape.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and inte
Gimme specific examples and I'll have a look at it.
We (net-snmp) are just about to release a new version (5.4.1) so I'd
like to fix it before it goes to production.
It may be a known bug, since fixed, with 5.0.9.
>Not specifically a ZFS question, but is anyone monitoring disk space of
their ZF
MachineMB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU
/sec %CPU
/fastsan/zfs3 (with 3 snapshots and a clone)
100 5414 98.8 31819 58.9 46620 95.4 2895 98.8 100516 99.8
7490.8 172.3
/fastsan/zfs3 (with 1 snapshot and a clone)
100 5316 97.5 65448 99.7 50097 99.0
Mark J Musante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but 'zfs clone' is
exactly
the way to mount a snapshot. Creating a clone uses up a negligible
amount
of disk space, provided you never write to it. And you can always set
readonly=on if that's a concern.
So
I have a scenario where I have several ORACLE databases. I'm trying to
keep system downtime to a minimum for business reasons. I've created
zpools on three devices, an internal 148 Gb drive (data) and two
partitions on an HP SAN. HP won't do JBOD so I'm stuck with relying
upon HP to give me a cl
>
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are
>> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
>> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
>> in
Management here is worried about performance under ZFS because they had
a bad experience with Instant Image a number of years ago. When iiamd
was used, server performance was reduced to a crawl. Hence they want
proof in the form of benchmarking that zfs snapshots will not adversely
affect system
>Would a forcesync flag be something of interest to the community ?
Yes.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
12 matches
Mail list logo
