Jens Elkner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:20:23AM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
We're currently using the Sun bundled Samba to provide CIFS access to our
ZFS user/group directories.
...
Evidently the samba engineering group is in Prague. I don't know if it is a
language problem, or where th
Paul B. Henson wrote:
So why not the built-in CIFS support in OpenSolaris? Probably has a
similar issue, but still.
I wouldn't think it has this same issue; presumably it won't support more
than the kernel limit of 32 groups, but I can't imagine that in the case
when a user is in more than 32
I have OSol 2009.06 (b111a), and I'm not sure I'm getting this ZFS ACL
thing:
%whoami
abalfour
% ls -V file
--+ 1 abalfour root 1474560 May 11 18:43 file
owner@:-w--d--A-W-C--:---:deny
according to that ACL I shouldn't be able to write anything having to do
with
Are you assuming that bad disk blocks are returned to the free pool?
Hrm. I was assuming that zfs was unaware of the source of the error, and
therefore unable to avoid running into it again. If it was a bad sector, and the
disk knows about it, then you probably woulnd't see it again. But if th
Uwe Dippel wrote:
If it was (successful), that would have been something. It wasn't.
It was; zfs successfully repaired the data, as is evidenced by the lack of
errors in the status output:
errors: No known data errors
'status' brought up the 'unrecoverable error', whatever number of
'scru
Now I wonder where that error came from. It was just a single
checksum error. It couldn't go away with an earlier scrub, and
seemingly left no traces of badness on the drive. Something serious?
At least it looks a tad contradictory: "Applications are
unaffected.", it is unrecoverable, and once
