Achim Wolpers wrote:
> I'm searching for a GUI tool to set ZFS (NFSv4) ACLs. I found some nautilus
> add ons in the web but
> they don't seen to work with nautilus shipped with OI. Any solution?
I've been looking for something like this for ages, but as far as I know none
exists. It certainly
Paul Kraus wrote:
>> My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here
>
> What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS)
All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS, and
it's one that is clearly being completely ignored by btrfs: ease of use. The
zfs
.
The
fault tolerance of the pool may be compromised if imported.
see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-EY
config:
xvm DEGRADED
mirror-0 DEGRADED
c0t4d0 FAULTED corrupted data
> Did your x4500 cope with 3TB disks without any
> modifications? I heard the BIOS does not support >2TB
> disks?
We had no problems with our Sun X4500 supporting 3TB disks.
(We bought a single 3TB drive to test on the system to make sure
before buying 45 more!) Over the years, we have updated th
with
Hitachi Deskstar drives (500G). They had a Sun sticker and S/N on them, but
they also
said "Deskstar" and had HDS7250 printed on them. As far as I could tell, these
were
not "enterprise" grade drives.
-Doug
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
ate partition then you risked making it too big or too
small. But given the flexibility of ZFS, I think the question is really "is
there any reason *not* to put /var on a separate ZFS filesystem?"
Doug Linder
--
Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merchantlink.com.
THIS MESSAG
On 23/03/11 12:13 PM, Linder, Doug wrote:
> OK, I know this is only tangentially related to ZFS, but we're
> desperate and I thought someone might have a clue or idea of what kind
> of thing to look for. Also, this issue is holding up widespread
> adoption of ZFS at our shop.
OK, I know this is only tangentially related to ZFS, but we're desperate and I
thought someone might have a clue or idea of what kind of thing to look for.
Also, this issue is holding up widespread adoption of ZFS at our shop. It's
making the powers-that-be balk a little - understandably. If
Tim Cook wrote:
>"Claiming you'd start paying for Solaris if they gave you ZFS for free in
>Linux is absolutely ridiculous."
*Start* paying? You clearly have NO idea what it costs to run Solaris in a
production environment with support. For what we pay it seems like they should
send us a Sol
> lalala..
>
> http://zfsonlinux.org/
Very nice. So why isn't it in Fedora (for example)?
I'll believe it when I see it in a big Linux distribution, supported like any
other FS, and I can use it in production. Until then, it doesn't exist.
--
Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merc
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license
> used by ZFS but the missing will for integration.
>
> Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would
> just create a "collective work" that is permitted by the GPL.
Folks, I ve
> I'm very happy it's not in linux since "linux" is
> usually a low quality pile of crap cobbled together. If you're not
> writing the code to zfs or btrfs then you don't get a vote and just
> making noise on a public mailing list
>
> How about doing some work instead of just complaining about th
> > Why do you want them to "GPL" ZFS? In what way would that save you
> annoyance?
>
> I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the
> development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily
> GPL'd.
Yes. I don't
them to lock it up as tight and proprietary as possible and charge
everyone as much as they can, because what's important is The Last Penny On
Earth. But I'm hoping I'm wrong and being overly pessimistic.
Doug Linder
--
Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merchantlink.co
Craig Morgan wrote:
> The GUI was a plug-in to Sun WebConsole which is/was a Solaris10
> feature ... I would expect some integration of that going forward, but
> you'd have to check with Oracle on integration plans.
It was a POS anyways, in my opinion. It was really tough to get working and
did
Nicolas Williams [mailto:nicolas.willi...@oracle.com] wrote:
> It's the sticky bit. Nowadays it's only useful on directories, and
> really it's generally only used with 777 permissions. The chmod(1)
Thanks. It doesn't seem harmful. But it does make me wonder why it's showing
up on my newly-c
Michael Schuster [mailto:michael.schus...@oracle.com] wrote:
> Mark, I think that wasn't the question, rather, "what's the difference
> between 'zfs u[n]mount' and '/usr/bin/umount'?"
Yes, that was the question. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
Do
Hi Folks,
Is there any technical difference between using "zfs unmount" to unmount a ZFS
filesystem versus the standard unix "umount" command? I always use "zfs
unmount" but some of my colleagues still just use umount. Is there any reason
to use one over th
I recently created a test zpool (RAIDZ) on some iSCSI shares. I made a few
test directories and files. When I do a listing, I see something I've never
seen before:
[r...@hostname anewdir] # ls -la
total 6160
drwxr-xr-x 2 root other 4 Sep 14 14:16 .
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root
ually the very freshest code
available that day. I just meant to say that sometimes young OSS zealots
people get overconfident and think anyone who doesn't always upgrade business
systems to the bleeding edge is "stodgy," "behind the times," or "stuck in the
pa
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
> OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta.
> Solaris lags so far behind it's not really an upgrade path.
It's often hard for OSS-minded people to believe, but there are an awful lot of
places that actively DO NOT want the la
a no-brainer. ZFS supports it natively, it
supports all the wonderful extra capabilities that the ZFS ACLs allow, has
stronger security, stateful protocol, and all kinds of other nifty stuff. Why
do people seem to be clinging so rabidly to the old version? Is there some
technical reason I
x27;d still rather bypass it
completely. I believe in the "Keep it simple, stupid" philosophy.
I do realize that NFS is probably better for remote filesystems that have
multiple simultaneous users, but we won't be doing that in this case.
Any major arguments for/against one ov
t see Oracle dragging anyone into court and trying to sue for
copying some command syntax.
OK, of course I realize it wouldn't be that simple and that a fair amount of
coding would be involved. But it would be interface and parsing code, not the
heavy-duty black magic. More-junior developers
Bogdan Maryniuk wrote:
> Or you want to let me tell you real stories how OEM hardware is
> supported and how many emails/phonecalls it involves? One of the very
> latest (just a week ago): Apple Support reported me that their
> engineers in US has no green idea why Darwin kernel panics on their
Y
Erik Trimble wrote:
> OEM equipment has a whole bunch of different features that you can't
> get via a build-it-yourself rig like Supermicro (even if you are having a
> whitebox vendor assemble the Supermicro and not do it yourself). Not
> just Sun equipment, but all OEM equipment is in a totall
Dave Pooser wrote:
> I'm looking at a new web server for the company, and am considering
> Solaris specifically because of ZFS. (Oracle's lousy sales model--
> specifically
> the unwillingness to give a price for a Solaris support contract without my
> having to send multiple emails to multiple a
While we're on the topic, has anyone used ZFS much with Vormetric's encryption
product? Any feedback?
Doug Linder
--
Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merchantlink.com.
THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and any attachments are
proprietary and co
Erik Trimble wrote:
> it does look like they'll win, I would bet huge chunks of money that
> Oracle cross-licenses the patents or pays for a license, rather than
> kill ZFS (it simply makes too much money for Oracle to abandon).
Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wond
> People still use Outhouse? Really?! Next you'll be suggesting that
> some people still put up with Internet Exploder... ;-)
Those of us who are literally forced to use it aren't too happy. Nor am I
happy with the giant stupid signature that gets tacked on that you all have to
trim when you
> Another thing that Gmail does that I find infuriating, is that it
> mucks with the formatting. For some reason it, and to be fair, Outlook
> as well, seem to think that they know how a message needs to be
> formatted better than I do.
Try doing inline quoting/response with Outlook, where you quo
We have a 2006 Sun X4500 with Hitachi 500G disk drives. Its been running for
over four years and just now fmadm & zpool reports a disk has failed. No data
was lost (RAIDZ2 + hot spares worked as expected.) But, the server is out of
warranty and we have no hardware support on it.
I found the
Cindy,
Thanks for the info and fixing the web site.
I'm still confused why there are two different things (zpool and zfs) that need
to be upgraded. For example, is there any reason I would want to upgrade the
zpool and NOT upgrade the zfs?
Thanks,
Doug
--
This message posted
on 1"
through "Version 4" But, following those links brings up the
descriptions of the ZFS Pool versions 1-4, not the ZFS versions.
Thanks again,
Doug
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
__
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
--
Dr Doug Baker
Sun Mi
Probably Richard Elling's blog:
http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_raid_recommendations_space_performance
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinf
Any recommendations for an SSD to work with an X4500 server? Will the SSDs
used in the 7000 series servers work with X4500s or X4540s?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.open
d
> args:
> Fast Data Access MMU Miss
> i can not get any information about this trouble. Do you
> have any idea?
> WBW, Stanislav
The OBP installed on this system is ancient and could be the cause of the
problems you are seeing. Patch 118323-01 h
I've got an X4500/thumper that is mainly used as an NFS server.
It has been discussed in the past that NFS performance with ZFS can be slow
(when running "tar" to expand an archive with lots of files, for example.) My
understanding is the reason that zfs/nfs is slow in this case is because it i
When we installed the Marvell driver patch 125205-07 on our X4500 a few months
ago and it started crashing, Sun support just told us to back out that patch.
The system has been stable since then.
We are still running Solaris 10 11/06 on that system. Is there an advantage to
using 125205-07 an
s disk so I get
the normal 0-7 partitions? I've already destroyed the pool.
-Doug
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Looks like somewhere between the CPU and your disks you have a limitation of
<9500 ops/sec.
How did you connect 32 disks to your v440?
Doug
> Hi.
>
> snv_44, v440
> lebench/varmail results for ZFS RAID10 with 6 disks
> and 32 disks.
> What is suprising is that the r
I dont think there is much chance of achieving anywhere near 350MB/s.
That is a hell of a lot of IO/s for 6 disks+raid(5/Z)+shared fibre. While you
can always get very good results from a single disk IO, your percentage
gain is always decreasing the more disks you add to
> Doug Scott wrote:
> >>It is likely that "best practice" will be to
> separate
> >>the root pool (that is, the pool where dataset are
> >>allocated)
> >
> > On a system with plenty of disks it is a good idea.
> I started
> >
ystem boundary gave me sufficent
separation. Having separate pools made me have 2 partitions
with fixed boundries, which limited ZFS's flexibility.
Doug
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-disc
s forum?]
Remove the quota from the loop, and before the loop do a zfs set quota=1024k
testpool. This should be a more efficent
Doug
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://m
My latest blog details the steps needed to access your zfs root filesystem from
miniroot. It would probably be wise if you set this up before you need it :)
http://solaristhings.blogspot.com
Doug
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs
small ufs partition for
grub, and I detail how to use a zfs clone as a test root partition.
Doug
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
48 matches
Mail list logo
