Forwarding here, as suggested by chaps on storage-discuss.
Just to clarify, I was running filebench directly on the x4500, not from
an initiator, so this is probably not a COMSTAR thing.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:58:47PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> > I'm happy to inform that the ZFS file system is now part of the FreeBSD
> > operating system. ZFS is available in the HEAD branch and will be
> > available in FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE as an experimental feature.
>
> This is fantastic news!
Hi Robert,
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 02:42:33PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Tuesday, January 23, 2007, 1:48:50 PM, you wrote:
> CD> On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:07:34PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>
> >> Of course the question is why use ZFS over DID?
>
> CD> Actually the question is probably
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:07:34PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello Zoram,
>
> Tuesday, January 23, 2007, 11:27:48 AM, you wrote:
>
> ZT> Hi Ceri,
>
> ZT> I just saw your mail today. I'm replying In case you haven't found a
> ZT> solution.
>
> ZT> This is
>
> ZT> 6475304 zfs core dumps
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 03:57:48PM +0530, Zoram Thanga wrote:
> Hi Ceri,
>
> I just saw your mail today. I'm replying In case you haven't found a
> solution.
>
> This is
>
> 6475304 zfs core dumps when trying to create new spool using "did" device
>
> The workaround suggests:
>
> Set environm
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:55:39PM +0800, Jeremy Teo wrote:
> On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how
> useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of
> "nice to have"?
We definitely need it. As a usage case, on occasion we have had to move
SAN sites,
On an up to date Solaris 10 11/06 with Sun Cluster 3.2 and iSCSI backed
did devices, zpool dumps core on creation if I try to use a did device.
Using the underlying device works, and this might not be supported
(though I don't know), but I thought you would probably prefer to see
the error than no
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 10:25:18AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:48:19PM +, Dick Davies wrote:
> > Just spotted one - is this intentional?
> >
> > You can't delegate a dataset to a zone if mountpoint=legacy.
> > Changing it to 'n
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:48:19PM +, Dick Davies wrote:
> Just spotted one - is this intentional?
>
> You can't delegate a dataset to a zone if mountpoint=legacy.
> Changing it to 'none' works fine.
>
>
> vera / # zfs create tank/delegated
> vera / # zfs get mountpoint tank/delegated
>
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 11:13:02AM -0800, Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 06:06:24PM +0000, Ceri Davies wrote:
> >
> > But you could presumably get that exact effect by not listing a
> > filesystem in /etc/vfstab.
> >
>
> Yes, but someone could st
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 06:08:23PM +0100, Terence Patrick Donoghue wrote:
> Dick Davies wrote On 11/28/06 17:15,:
>
> >Is there a difference between setting mountpoint=legacy and
> >mountpoint=none?
> Is there a difference - Yep,
>
> 'legacy' tells ZFS to refer to the /etc/vfstab file for FS mo
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 04:45:02PM -0700, Lori Alt wrote:
> Ceri Davies wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:32:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>>Actually, we have considered this. On both SPARC and x86, there will be
> >>>a way to specify t
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:32:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Actually, we have considered this. On both SPARC and x86, there will be
> >a way to specify the root file system (i.e., the bootable dataset) to be
> >booted,
> >at either the GRUB prompt (for x86) or the OBP prompt (for SPA
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 04:23:18PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 09:58:35PM +0000, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:10:30PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > >I think we first need to define what stat
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:10:30PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I think we first need to define what state "up" actually is. Is it the
> >kernel booted ? Is it the root file system mounted ? Is it we reached
> >milestone all ? Is it we reached milestone all with no services in
> >ma
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 04:00:43PM -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> Spencer Shepler wrote:
> >On Wed, Adam Leventhal wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:17:02PM -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> >>
> >>>Is there going to be a method to override that on the import? I can see
> >>>a situation
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 10:57:27AM -0800, Adam Leventhal wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:17:02PM -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> > Is there going to be a method to override that on the import? I can see
> > a situation where you want to import the pool for some kind of
> > maintenance procedur
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 02:14:24AM -0800, Adam Leventhal wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 10:05:01AM +0000, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:33:33AM -0800, Adam Leventhal wrote:
> > > Rick McNeal and I have been working on building support for sharing ZVOLs
>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:33:33AM -0800, Adam Leventhal wrote:
> Rick McNeal and I have been working on building support for sharing ZVOLs
> as iSCSI targets directly into ZFS. Below is the proposal I'll be
> submitting to PSARC. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
It looks great and I'd love t
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:01:45PM -0800, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> >We're looking at replacing a current Linux server with a T1000 + a fiber
> >channel enclosure to take advantage of ZFS. Unfortunately, the T1000 only
> >has a single drive bay (!) which makes it impossib
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:54:05PM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:06:15PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
> > On 12/10/06, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:49:48PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> >
> > >
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:53:37AM -0600, Mark Maybee wrote:
> Ceri Davies wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:49:48PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> >
> >>James McPherson wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 10/12/06, Steve Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:06:15PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
> On 12/10/06, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:49:48PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
>
> >> FYI, /etc/zfs/zpool.cache just tells us what pools to open when you boo
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:49:48PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> James McPherson wrote:
> >On 10/12/06, Steve Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Where is the ZFS configuration (zpools, mountpoints, filesystems,
> >>etc) data stored within Solaris? Is there something akin to vfstab
> >>or per
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:36:28PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as
> >> a minefield.
> >
> >
> >I've found this to be true for almost all open source platforms w
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:04:49AM -0400, Zhisong Jin wrote:
> would it possible to use ZFS snapshot as way
> to doing hot backup for oracle database?
> anybody have tried that?
You would need to put the tablespaces with data files on the filesystem
being snapped into backup mode while you take
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:55:48AM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 09:31:04AM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 05:08:18PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > > Yes, but the checksum is stored with the pointer.
> > >
&
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 05:08:18PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 10:32:59PM +0200, Henk Langeveld wrote:
> > Bady, Brant RBCM:EX wrote:
> > >Part of the archiving process is to generate checksums (I happen to use
> > >MD5), and store them with other metadata about the dig
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Dale Ghent wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Eric Schrock wrote:
> >
> >>Storing the hostid as a last-ditch check for administrative error is a
> >>reasonable RFE - just one that we haven't yet gotten around to.
> >>Claiming t
> Hi Matt,
> Interesting proposal. Has there been any
> consideration if free space being reported for a ZFS
> filesystem would take into account the copies
> setting?
>
> Example:
> zfs create mypool/nonredundant_data
> zfs create mypool/redundant_data
> df -h /mypool/nonredundant_data
> /
30 matches
Mail list logo
