Re: [zfs-discuss] Building an On-Site and Off-Size ZFS server, replication question

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > I do have a lot of what would appear to be unnecessary filesystems, but > after loosing the WAN 3 days into a large transfer, a change of tactic was > required! > I've recently (last year or so) gone the other way, and have made an effort to c

Re: [zfs-discuss] Building an On-Site and Off-Size ZFS server, replication question

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Ian Collins wrote: > I do have to suffer a slow, glitchy WAN to a remote server and rather than > send stream files, I broke the data *on the remote server* into a more > fine grained set of filesystems than I would do normally. In this case, I > made the director

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any HP Servers recommendation for Openindiana (Capacity Server) ?

2012/1/3 Christopher Hearn : > On Jan 3, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Svavar Örn Eysteinsson wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> I'm planing to replace my old Apple XRAID, and XSAN Filesystem(1.4.2) Fiber >> environment. >> This setup only hosted a AFP,CIFS for a large advertising agency. >> Now that Fiber is damn expe

Re: [zfs-discuss] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity

So with a de facto fork (illumos) now in place, is it possible that two zpools will report the same version yet be incompatible across implementations? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/z

[zfs-discuss] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity

If I "upgrade" ZFS to use the new features in Solaris 11 I will be unable > to import my pool using the free ZFS implementation that is available in > illumos based distributions > Is that accurate? I understand if the S11

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create a mirror for a root rpool?

Of course I meant 'zpool *' not 'zfs *' below. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > >> On 12/19/2011 8:51 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: >> >> If you don't detach the smaller dr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create a mirror for a root rpool?

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > On 12/19/2011 8:51 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > If you don't detach the smaller drive, the pool size won't increase. Even > if the remaining smaller drive fails, that doesn't mean you have to detach > it

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create a mirror for a root rpool?

If you don't detach the smaller drive, the pool size won't increase. Even if the remaining smaller drive fails, that doesn't mean you have to detach it. So yes, the pool size might increase, but it won't be "unexpectedly". It will be because you detached all smaller drives. Also, even if a small

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create a mirror for a root rpool?

You can just do fdisk to create a single large partition. The attached mirror doesn't have to be the same size as the first component. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > Cindy, will it ever be possible to just have attach mirror the surfaces, > including the partition tab

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create a mirror for a root rpool?

It can still be done for USB, but you have to boot from alternate media to attach the mirror. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > Yes, except if your root pool is on a USB stick or removable media. > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create a mirror for a root rpool?

Yes, except if your root pool is on a USB stick or removable media. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) < mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote: > > On Solaris 10 If I install using ZFS root on only one drive is there a way > to add another drive as a mirror later? Sorry

Re: [zfs-discuss] does log device (ZIL) require a mirror setup?

Corruption? Or just loss? On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Matt Breitbach wrote: > I would say that it's a "highly recommended". If you have a pool that > needs > to be imported and it has a faulted, unmirrored log device, you risk data > corruption. > > -Matt Breitbach > > -Original Messag

Re: [zfs-discuss] virtualbox rawdisk discrepancy

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > I haven't been able to get this working. To keep it simpler, next I am > > going to try usbcopy of the live USB image in the VM, and see if I can > boot

Re: [zfs-discuss] virtualbox rawdisk discrepancy

I haven't been able to get this working. To keep it simpler, next I am going to try usbcopy of the live USB image in the VM, and see if I can boot real hardware from the resultant live USB stick. On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jim Kli

Re: [zfs-discuss] virtualbox rawdisk discrepancy

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > grub does need to have an idea of the device path, maybe in vbox it's seen > as the 3rd disk (c0t2), so the boot device name written to grub.conf is > "disk3" (whatever the terminology for that is in grub-speak),

Re: [zfs-discuss] virtualbox rawdisk discrepancy

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Frank Cusack > wrote: > >> &

Re: [zfs-discuss] virtualbox rawdisk discrepancy

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > > > If we ignore the vbox aspect of it, and assume real hardware with real > > devices, of course you can install on one x86 hardware and move th

Re: [zfs-discuss] virtualbox rawdisk discrepancy

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > So basically the question is if you install solaris on one machine, > can you move the disk (in this case the usb stick) to another machine > and boot it there, right? > Yes, but one of the machines is a virtual machine. The answer, as

[zfs-discuss] virtualbox rawdisk discrepancy

I have a Sun machine running Solaris 10, and a Vbox instance running Solaris 11 11/11. The vbox machine has a virtual disk pointing to /dev/disk1 (rawdisk), seen in sol11 as c0t2. If I create a zpool on the Sun s10 machine, on a USB stick, I can take that USB stick and access it through the vbox

Re: [zfs-discuss] tuning zfs_arc_min

Op 12-10-11 02:27, Richard Elling schreef: On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Frank Van Damme wrote: Honestly? I don't remember. might be a "leftover" setting from a year ago. by now, I figured out I need to "update the boot archive" in order for the new setting to have

Re: [zfs-discuss] tuning zfs_arc_min

cially for a storage server. Can > you explain your reasoning? Honestly? I don't remember. might be a "leftover" setting from a year ago. by now, I figured out I need to "update the boot archive" in order for the new setting to have effect at boot time which apparently in

Re: [zfs-discuss] tuning zfs_arc_min

2011/10/8 James Litchfield : > The value of zfs_arc_min specified in /etc/system must be over 64MB > (0x400). > Otherwise the setting is ignored. The value is in bytes not pages. wel I've now set it to 0x800 and it stubbornly stays at 2048 MB... -- Frank Van Damme N

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS

io, possibly? -- Frank Van Damme No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy without the benevolence of the author. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensola

[zfs-discuss] tuning zfs_arc_min

Hello, quick and stupid question: I'm breaking my head over how to tunz zfs_arc_min on a running system. There must be some magic word to pipe into mdb -kw but I forgot it. I tried /etc/system but it's still at the old value after reboot: ZFS Tunables (/etc/system): set zfs:zfs_arc_min =

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive and ashift

Op 26-07-11 12:56, Fred Liu schreef: > Any alternatives, if you don't mind? ;-) vpn's, openssl piped over netcat, a password-protected zip file,... ;) ssh would be the most practical, probably. -- No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive or by any means,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

iding cheap storage). -- Frank Van Damme No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy without the benevolence of the author. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup memory and performance (again, again)

Op 15-07-11 04:27, Edward Ned Harvey schreef: > Is anyone from Oracle reading this? I understand if you can't say what > you're working on and stuff like that. But I am merely hopeful this work > isn't going into a black hole... > > Anyway. Thanks for listening (I hope.) ttyl If they aren'

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup memory and performance (again, again)

Op 14-07-11 12:28, Jim Klimov schreef: >> > Yes, quite often it seems so. > Whenever my slow "dcpool" decides to accept a write, > it processes a hundred pending deletions instead of one ;) > > Even so, it took quite a few pool or iscsi hangs and then > reboots of both server and client, and about

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup memory and performance (again, again)

Op 12-07-11 13:40, Jim Klimov schreef: > Even if I batch background RM's so a hundred processes hang > and then they all at once complete in a minute or two. Hmmm. I only run one rm process at a time. You think running more processes at the same time would be faster? -- No part of this copyright

Re: [zfs-discuss] question about COW and snapshots

Op 15-06-11 14:30, Simon Walter schreef: > Anyone know how Google Docs does it? Anyone from Google on the list? :-) Seriously, this is the kind of feature to be found in Serious CMS applications, like, as already mentioned, Alfresco. -- No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read

Re: [zfs-discuss] question about COW and snapshots

Op 15-06-11 05:56, Richard Elling schreef: > You can even have applications like databases make snapshots when > they want. Makes me think of a backup utility called mylvmbackup, which is written with Linux in mind - basically it locks mysql tables, takes an LVM snapshot and releases the lock (and

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import hangs any zfs-related programs, eats all RAM and dies in swapping hell

2011/6/10 Tim Cook : > While your memory may be sufficient, that cpu is sorely lacking.  Is it even > 64bit?  There's a reason intel couldn't give those things away in the early > 2000s and amd was eating their lunch. A Pentium 4 is 32-bit. -- Frank Van Damme No part of thi

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS acl inherit problem

2011/6/1 lance wilson : > The problem is that nfs clients that connect to my solaris 11 express server > are not inheriting the acl's that are set for the share. They create files > that don't have any acl assigned to them, just the normal unix file > permissions. Can someone please provide some

Re: [zfs-discuss] DDT sync?

ARC size on this box tends to drop far below arc_min after a few days, not withstanding the fact it's supposed to be a hard limit. I call for an arc_data_max setting :) -- Frank Van Damme No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive o

Re: [zfs-discuss] offline dedup

isable dedup, the system won't bother checking to see if > there are duplicate blocks anymore.  So the DDT won't need to be in > arc+l2arc.  I should say "shouldn't." Except when deleting deduped blocks. -- Frank Van Damme No part of this copyright message may be r

Re: [zfs-discuss] optimal layout for 8x 1 TByte SATA (consumer)

t; These are all 7200.11 Seagates, refurbished. I'd scrub > once a week, that'd probably suck on raidz2, too? > > Thanks. Sequential? Let's suppose no spares. 4 mirrors of 2 = sustained bandwidth of 4 disks raidz2 with 8 disks = sustained bandwidth of 6 disks So :) --

Re: [zfs-discuss] DDT sync?

Op 26-05-11 13:38, Edward Ned Harvey schreef: > Perhaps a property could be > set, which would store the DDT exclusively on that device. Oh yes please, let me put my DDT on an SSD. But what if you loose it (the vdev), would there be a way to reconstruct the DDT (which you need to be able to delet

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta

Op 25-05-11 14:27, joerg.moellenk...@sun.com schreef: > Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end > everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS > implementation Why? Given that ZFS is Solaris ZFS just as well as Nexenta ZFS just as well as illumos ZFS,

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta

Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef: > With various fock of opensource project > E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different > There are not guarantee to be compatible I hope at least they'll try. Just in case I want to import/export zpools between Nexenta and OpenIndiana? -- N

Re: [zfs-discuss] Solaris vs FreeBSD question

Op 20-05-11 01:17, Chris Forgeron schreef: > I ended up switching back to FreeBSD after using Solaris for some time > because I was getting tired of weird pool corruptions and the like. Did you ever manage to recover the data you blogged about on Sunday, February 6, 2011? -- No part of this cop

Re: [zfs-discuss] Faster copy from UFS to ZFS

Op 03-05-11 17:55, Brandon High schreef: > -H: Hard links If you're going to this for 2 TB of data, remember to expand your swap space first (or have tons of memory). Rsync will need it to store every inode number in the directory. -- No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup and L2ARC memory requirements

Op 10-05-11 06:56, Edward Ned Harvey schreef: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey >> >> BTW, here's how to tune it: >> >> echo "arc_meta_limit/Z 0x3000" | sudo mdb -kw >> >> echo "::arc" | sudo mdb -k | gre

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup and L2ARC memory requirements

Op 09-05-11 15:42, Edward Ned Harvey schreef: >> > in my previous >> > post my arc_meta_used was bigger than my arc_meta_limit (by about 50%) > I have the same thing. But as I sit here and run more and more extensive > tests on it ... it seems like arc_meta_limit is sort of a soft limit. Or it >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup and L2ARC memory requirements

Op 09-05-11 15:42, Edward Ned Harvey schreef: >> > in my previous >> > post my arc_meta_used was bigger than my arc_meta_limit (by about 50%) > I have the same thing. But as I sit here and run more and more extensive > tests on it ... it seems like arc_meta_limit is sort of a soft limit. Or it >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup and L2ARC memory requirements

Op 09-05-11 14:36, Edward Ned Harvey schreef: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey >> >> So now I'll change meta_max and >> see if it helps... > > Oh, know what? Nevermind. > I just looked at the source, and i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup and L2ARC memory requirements

Op 08-05-11 17:20, Edward Ned Harvey schreef: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey >> >> But I'll go tune and test with this knowledge, just to be sure. > > BTW, here's how to tune it: > > echo "arc_meta_limit

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup and L2ARC memory requirements

Op 06-05-11 05:44, Richard Elling schreef: > As the size of the data grows, the need to have the whole DDT in RAM or L2ARC > decreases. With one notable exception, destroying a dataset or snapshot > requires > the DDT entries for the destroyed blocks to be updated. This is why people can > go for

[zfs-discuss] gaining speed with l2arc

data). Bad idea, or would it even help to set primarycache=metadata too, to not let RAM fill up with file data? P.S. the system is: NexentaOS_134f (I'm looking into newer OpenSolaris variants with bugs fixed/better performance, too). -- Frank Van Damme No part of this copyright message ma

Re: [zfs-discuss] aclmode -> no zfs in heterogeneous networks anymore?

2011/4/26 achim...@googlemail.com : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi! > > We are setting up a new file server on an OpenIndiana box (oi_148). The > spool is run-in version 28, so the "aclmode" option is gone. The server > has to serve files to Linux, OSX and windows. Becau

Re: [zfs-discuss] Changed ACL behavior in snv_151 ?

2011/1/27 Garrett D'Amore : > We are working on a change to illumos (and NexentaStor) to revive > acl_mode... lots and lots of people have had very bad experiences as a > result of that particular change. We had to put a chmod() wrapper into our app (Netatalk) to work around that. Good to hear you

Re: [zfs-discuss] Changed ACL behavior in snv_151 ?

2011/1/27 Ryan John : >> -Original Message- >> From: Frank Lahm [mailto:frankl...@googlemail.com] >> Sent: 25 January 2011 14:50 >> To: Ryan John >> Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Changed ACL behavior in snv_151 ? > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Changed ACL behavior in snv_151 ?

John, welcome onboard! 2011/1/25 Ryan John : > I’m sharing file systems using a smb and nfs, and since I’ve upgraded to > snv_151, when I do a chmod from an NFS client, I lose all the NFSv4 ACLs. I'd summarize as follows: in order to pl

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

2010/12/24 Edward Ned Harvey : >> From: Frank Lahm [mailto:frankl...@googlemail.com] >> >> With Netatalk for AFP he _is_ running a database: any AFP server needs >> to maintain a consistent mapping between _not reused_ catalog node ids >> (CNIDs) and filesystem o

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

2010/12/24 Edward Ned Harvey : >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Stephan Budach >> >> Now, I am wondering if using a mirror of such 15k SAS drives would be a >> good-enough fit for a ZIL on a zpool that is mainly used for file

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/16/10 11:32 AM +0100 Joerg Schilling wrote: Note that while there existist numerous papers from lawyers that consistently explain which parts of the GPLv2 are violating US law and thus are void, Can you elaborate? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

that are most useful to me without artificial restrictions. Anything that advances that, I'm for. CDDL is close to that, much closer than GPL. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/16/10 10:24 AM -0500 Linder, Doug wrote: 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. In my ex

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in debating it. And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms of Oracle not really getting the point about open source development. -- Fra

Re: [zfs-discuss] very slow boot: stuck at mounting zfs filesystems

s with the wrong object size) that would cause other > components to hang, waiting for memory allocations. > > This was so bad in earlier kernels that systems would become unresponsive > for > a potentially very long time ( a phenomenon known as "bricking"). > > As I

Re: [zfs-discuss] very slow boot: stuck at mounting zfs filesystems

somewhat > of a workaround for this, although I've not seen comprehensive figures for > the gain it gives > - http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6977913 -- Frank Van Damme No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive or by

[zfs-discuss] very slow boot: stuck at mounting zfs filesystems

oblem may have anything to do with dedup? -- Frank Van Damme No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy without the benevolence of the author. ___ zfs-discuss maili

Re: [zfs-discuss] New system, Help needed!

Thank you all for your help. Have a nice day! -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] New system, Help needed!

I am a newbie on Solaris. We recently purchased a Sun Sparc M3000 server. It comes with 2 identical hard drives. I want to setup a raid 1. After searching on google, I found that the hardware raid was not working with M3000. So I am here to look for help on how to setup ZFS to use raid 1. Curre

Re: [zfs-discuss] No ACL inheritance with aclmode=passthrough in onnv-134

2010/10/25 Cindy Swearingen : > You can't simulate the aclmode-less world in the upcoming release > by setting aclmode to discard in b134. > > The reason you see your aclmode discarded because aclmode applies > to both chmod operations and file/dir create operations. Yes, after re-reading the docs

[zfs-discuss] No ACL inheritance with aclmode=passthrough in onnv-134

Hi list, while preparing for the changed ACL/mode_t mapping semantics coming with onnv-147 [1], I discovered that in onnv-134 on my system ACLs are not inherited when aclmode is set to passthrough for the filesystem. This very much puzzles me. Example: $ uname -a SunOS os 5.11 snv_134 i86pc i386

Re: [zfs-discuss] non-ECC Systems and ZFS for home users

erence other than lots of $$$? Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] resilver of older root pool disk

On 07/09/10 17:00, Frank Middleton wrote: This is a hypothetical question that could actually happen: Suppose a root pool is a mirror of c0t0d0s0 and c0t1d0s0 and for some reason c0t0d0s0 goes off line, but comes back on line after a shutdown. The primary boot disk would then be c0t0d0s0 which would

Re: [zfs-discuss] non-ECC Systems and ZFS for home users

ksum failures on mirrored drives a while back and it turned out to be the CPU itself getting the actual checksum wrong /only on one particular file/, and even then only when the ambient temperature was high. So ZFS is good at ferreting out obscure hardware problems :-). Cheers -- Frank ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] Solaris 10u9

On 9/8/10 9:32 AM -0400 Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Magda The 9/10 Update appears to have been released. Some of the more noticeable ZFS stuff that made it in: More at: http://docs.sun.com/a

[zfs-discuss] deduplication: l2arc size

a total of 13,027,407 entries, meaning it's 6,670,032,384 bytes big. So suppose our data grow on with a factor 12, it will take 80 GB. So, it would be best to buy a 128 GB SSD as L2ARC cache. Correct? Thanks for enlightening me, -- Frank Van Damme

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/19/10 10:48 AM +0200 Joerg Schilling wrote: 1) The OpenSource definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php section 9 makes it very clear that an OSS license must not restrict other software and must not prevent to bundle different works under different licenses on one medium.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On 8/18/10 3:58 PM -0400 Linder, Doug wrote: Erik Trimble wrote: That said, stability vs new features has NOTHING to do with the OSS development model. It has everything to do with the RELEASE model. [...] All that said, using the OSS model for actual *development* of an Operating System is co

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/18/10 9:29 AM -0700 Ethan Erchinger wrote: Edward wrote: I have had wonderful support, up to and including recently, on my Sun hardware. I wish we had the same luck. We've been handed off between 3 different "technicians" at this point, each one asking for the same information. Do they

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/17/10 3:17 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote: If Oracle really wants to keep it out of Linux, that means it wants to keep it out of FreeBSD also. Either way, to keep it out it needs to make it closed source, and as they say, the genie is already out of the bottle. I don't agree that there's a licens

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/17/10 3:31 PM +0900 BM wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek wrote: Disclaimer: I use Reiser4 A "Killer FS"™. :-) LOL ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/17/10 9:14 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage. You'

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage. You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux? ___ zfs-discuss maili

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On 8/14/10 10:18 PM -0700 Richard Elling wrote: On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting and why should Oracle enable them to build a b

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On 8/15/10 12:39 AM +0100 Kevin Walker wrote: and Oracle are very, very greedy... Let's not get all soft about OpenSolaris now ... all public companies are very, very greedy. They exist solely to make money. It's awesome that they make things that are useful, but it's just a way to meet the m

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/14/10 7:58 AM -0500 Russ Price wrote: My guess is that the theoretical Solaris Express 11 will be crippled by any or all of: missing features, artificial limits on functionality, or a restrictive license. I consider the latter most likely, much like the OTN On 8/14/10 3:15 PM -0400 Dave Po

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/13/10 11:21 PM -0400 Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris. What rock do you live under? Very few people would bother p

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 Eric D. Mudama wrote: On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote: Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting and why should Oracle enable them to build a busines

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

l swing things around regardless of what mega-corp does or doesn't do... Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting and why should Oracle en

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/13/10 3:39 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote: Quite frankly, I think there will be an even faster decline of Solaris installed base after this move. I know I have no interest in pushing it anywhere after this mess. I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris. __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Move Fedora or Windows disk image to ZFS (iScsi Boot)

example on how to do this. Making the new drive bootable is the real problem since it will probably not have the same identifier. For sure you'd have to edit grub ion the new drive and perhaps run grub interactively to install a boot loader. Hope this helps -- Frank __

Re: [zfs-discuss] carrying on [was: Legality and the future of zfs...]

On 07/19/10 07:26, Andrej Podzimek wrote: I run ArchLinux with Btrfs and OpenSolaris with ZFS. I haven't had a serious issue with any of them so far. Moblin/Meego ships with btrfs by default. COW file system on a cell phone :-). Unsurprisingly for a read-mostly file system it seems pretty stab

Re: [zfs-discuss] Who owns the dataset?

On 7/16/10 4:33 PM -0700 Johnson Earls wrote: On 07/16/10 10:30 AM, Lori Alt wrote: You can also run through the zones, doing 'zoneconfig -z info' commands to look for datasets delegated to each zone. That's not necessarily the current owner though, is it?

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On 7/16/10 3:07 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Fri, July 16, 2010 14:07, Frank Cusack wrote: On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: It would be nice to have applications request to be notified before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested notification have

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: It would be nice to have applications request to be notified before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot would be taken; and then another notification sent that it was t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On 7/15/10 9:49 AM +0900 BM wrote: On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote: ZFS is great. It's pretty much the only reason we're running Solaris. Well, if this is the the only reason, then run FreeBSD instead. I run Solaris because of the kernel architecture and other things tha

[zfs-discuss] resilver of older root pool disk

-- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers

On 6/26/10 9:47 AM -0400 David Magda wrote: Crickey. Who's the genius who thinks of these URLs? SEOs ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool - label missing on invalid

;zpool split'. Otherwise, shut down as normal (ie, don't tell zfs you are about to do anything different) and then just boot with the one disk, now in degraded state but otherwise ok. Like you, I learned this the hard way! -frank ___ z

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool - label missing on invalid

On 6/18/10 9:46 PM -0700 Cott Lang wrote: I split a mirror to reconfigure and recopy it. I detached one drive, reconfigured it ... all after unplugging the remaining pool drive during a shutdown to verify no accidents could happen. By detach, do you mean that you ran 'zpool detach'? ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] mount zfs boot disk on another server?

Should naming the root pool something unique (rpool-nodename) be a best practice? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool export / import discrepancy

> > > Is ZFS dependent on the order of the drives? Will this cause any issue > down the road? Thank you all; > > Scott > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] Please trim posts

On 6/10/10 11:07 PM -0700 Dave Koelmeyer wrote: I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that the context of what I was replying to was missing. Can't win :P There's a big difference between trim and remove. The worst is when people quote 3-4 paragraphs, respond inline to O

Re: [zfs-discuss] Migrating to ZFS

On 6/4/10 11:46 AM -0700 Brandon High wrote: Be aware that Solaris on x86 has two types of partitions. There are fdisk partitions (c0t0d0p1, etc) which is what gparted, windows and other tools will see. There are also Solaris partitions or slices (c0t0d0s0). You can create or edit these with the

Re: [zfs-discuss] one more time: pool size changes

On 6/3/10 12:06 AM -0400 Roman Naumenko wrote: I think there is a difference. Just quickly checked netapp site: Adding new disks to a RAID group If a volume has more than one RAID group, you can specify the RAID group to which you are adding disks. hmm that's a surprising feature to me. I rem

Re: [zfs-discuss] one more time: pool size changes

On 6/3/10 8:45 AM +0200 Juergen Nickelsen wrote: Richard Elling writes: And some time before I had suggested to a my buddy zfs for his new home storage server, but he turned it down since there is no expansion available for a pool. Heck, let him buy a NetApp :-) Definitely a possibility, g

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >