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] 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] 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?

On 12/16/10 9:11 AM -0500 Linder, Doug wrote: The only thing I'll add is that I, as I said, I really don't care at all about licenses. Then you have no room to complain or even suggest a specific license! When it comes to licenses, to me (and, I suspect, the vast majority of other OSS users)

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] 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

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

On 8/14/10 4:01 AM +0700 "C. Bergström" wrote: Gary Mills wrote: If this information is correct, http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043 further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors. Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris with

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] 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

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

On 6/18/10 11:25 PM -0700 Cott Lang wrote: By detach, do you mean that you ran 'zpool detach'? Yes. 'zpool detach' clears the information from the disk that zfs needs to reimport the disk. If you have a late enough version of opensolaris you should instead run 'zpool split'. Otherwise, shut

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] 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

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

On 6/2/10 11:10 PM -0400 Roman Naumenko wrote: Well, I explained it not very clearly. I meant the size of a raidz array can't be changed. For sure zpool add can do the job with a pool. Not with a raidz configuration. Well in that case it's invalid to compare against Netapp since they can't do i

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

On 6/2/10 3:54 PM -0700 Roman Naumenko wrote: 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. That's incorrect. zfs pools can be expanded at any time. AFAIK zfs has always had this

Re: [zfs-discuss] SMI lable and EFI label in one disk?

On 6/1/10 4:35 AM -0700 Fred Liu wrote: I just recalled a thread in this list and it said SMI lable and EFI label cannot be in one disk. Is it correct? Correct. But that was not your original question. Let me describe my case. I have a 160GB HDD -- saying c0t0d0. I use OpenSolaris installer

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zfs mirror boot hang at boot

On 5/29/10 12:54 AM -0700 Matt Connolly wrote: I'm running snv_134 on 64-bit x86 motherboard, with 2 SATA drives. The zpool "rpool" uses whole disk of each drive. Can't be. zfs can't boot from a whole disk pool on x86 (maybe sparc too). You have a single solaris partition with the root pool on

Re: [zfs-discuss] Oracle to no longer support ZFS on OpenSolaris?

On 4/21/10 3:48 PM +0100 Bayard Bell wrote: Oracle has a number of technologies that they've acquired that have remained dual-licensed, and that includes acquiring InnoTech, which they carried forward despite being able to use it as nearly an existential threat to MySQL. In the case of their acqu

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sharing Issues

On 2/21/10 11:08 PM -0800 Tau wrote: I am having a bit of an issue I have an opensolaris box setup as a fileserver. Running through CIFS to provide shares to some windows machines. Now lets call my zpool /tank1, Let's not because '/' is an illegal character in a zpool name. when i create

Re: [zfs-discuss] Abysmal ISCSI / ZFS Performance

On 2/10/10 2:06 PM -0800 Brian E. Imhoff wrote: I then, Create a zpool, using raidz2, using all 24 drives, 1 as a hotspare: zpool create tank raidz2 c1t0d0 c1t1d0 [] c1t22d0 spare c1t23d00 Well there's one problem anyway. That's going to be horribly slow no matter what. ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On 2/9/10 5:19 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Toby Thain wrote: On 9-Feb-10, at 2:02 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: On 2/9/10 12:03 PM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote:> Snorcle wants to sell hardware. LOL ... snorcle But apparently they don't. Have you seen

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On 2/9/10 12:03 PM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote:> Snorcle wants to sell hardware. LOL ... snorcle But apparently they don't. Have you seen the new website? Seems like a blatant attempt to kill the hardware business to me. ___ zfs-discuss mailing li

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On 2/8/10 12:49 AM -0200 Giovanni Tirloni wrote: I think the industry is in a sad state when you buy enterprise-level drives and they don't work as expected (see that thread about TLER settings on WD enterprise drives) that you have to spend extra on drives that got reviewed by a third-party (Sun

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On 2/6/10 4:51 PM +0100 Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: the pricing does look strange, and I think it would be better to raise the price of the enclosure (which is silly cheap when empty IMHO) and reduce the drive prices somewhat. but that's just psychology, and doesn't really matter for total cost.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS 'secure erase'

You might also want to note that with traditional filesystems, the 'shred' utility will securely erase data, but no tools like that will work for zfs. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/z

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS 'secure erase'

On 2/5/10 5:08 PM -0500 c.hanover wrote: would it be possible to create a 1GB file without writing any data to it, and then use a hex editor to access the data stored on those blocks previously? No, not over NFS and also not locally. You'd be creating a sparse file, which doesn't allocate spa

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS 'secure erase'

On 2/5/10 3:49 PM -0500 c.hanover wrote: Two things, mostly related, that I'm trying to find answers to for our security team. Does this scenario make sense: * Create a filesystem at /users/nfsshare1, user uses it for a while, asks for the filesystem to be deleted * New user asks for a filesyste

Re: [zfs-discuss] unionfs help

On 2/4/10 2:46 PM -0600 Nicolas Williams wrote: In Frank's case, IIUC, the better solution is to avoid the need for unionfs in the first place by not placing pkg content in directories that one might want to be writable from zones. If there's anything about Perl5 (or anything else) that causes t

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to get a list of changed files between two snapshots?

On 2/4/10 8:21 AM -0500 Ross Walker wrote: Find -newer doesn't catch files added or removed it assumes identical trees. This may be redundant in light of my earlier post, but yes it does. Directory mtimes are updated when a file is added or removed, and find -newer will detect that. -frank ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to get a list of changed files between two snapshots?

On 2/4/10 8:00 AM +0100 Tomas Ögren wrote: rsync by default compares metadata first, and only checks through every byte if you add the -c (checksum) flag. I would say rsync is the best tool here. ah, i didn't know that was the default. no wonder recently when i was incremental-rsyncing a few

Re: [zfs-discuss] unionfs help

BTW, I could just install everything in the global zone and use the default "inheritance" of /usr into each local zone to see the data. But then my zones are not independent portable entities; they would depend on some non-default software installed in the global zone. Just wanted to explain why

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to get a list of changed files between two snapshots?

On 2/4/10 12:39 AM -0500 Ross Walker wrote: On Feb 3, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: I think you misread the thread. Either find or ddiff will do it and either will be better than rsync. Find can find files that have been added or removed between two directory trees? How? When a

Re: [zfs-discuss] unionfs help

On February 4, 2010 12:12:04 PM +0100 dick hoogendijk wrote: Why don't you just export that directory with NFS (rw) to your sparse zone and mount it on /usr/perl5/mumble ? Or is this too simple a thought? On February 4, 2010 1:41:20 PM +0100 Thomas Maier-Komor wrote: What about lofs? I thin

[zfs-discuss] unionfs help

Is it possible to emulate a unionfs with zfs and zones somehow? My zones are sparse zones and I want to make part of /usr writable within a zone. (/usr/perl5/mumble to be exact) I can't just mount a writable directory on top of /usr/perl5 because then it hides all the stuff in the global zone.

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to get a list of changed files between two snapshots?

On February 3, 2010 6:46:57 PM -0500 Ross Walker wrote: So was there a final consensus on the best way to find the difference between two snapshots (files/directories added, files/directories deleted and file/directories changed)? Find won't do it, ddiff won't do it, I think the only real optio

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to get a list of changed files between two snapshots?

On February 3, 2010 12:19:50 PM -0500 Frank Cusack wrote: If you do need to know about deleted files, the find method still may be faster depending on how ddiff determines whether or not to do a file diff. The docs don't explain the heuristics so I wouldn't want to guess on

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to get a list of changed files between two snapshots?

On February 3, 2010 6:02:52 PM +0100 Jens Elkner wrote: On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:29:18AM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote: # newer files find /file/system -newer /file/system/.zfs/snapshot/snapname -type f # deleted files cd /file/system/.zfs/snapshot/snapname find . -type f -exec "test -f

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to get a list of changed files between two snapshots?

On February 3, 2010 12:04:07 PM +0200 Henu wrote: Is there a possibility to get a list of changed files between two snapshots? Currently I do this manually, using basic file system functions offered by OS. I scan every byte in every file manually and it ^^^

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to get a list of changed files between two snapshots?

On February 3, 2010 12:04:07 PM +0200 Henu wrote: Is there a possibility to get a list of changed files between two snapshots? Great timing as I just looked this up last night, I wanted to verify that an install program was only changing the files on disk that it claimed to be changing. So I

Re: [zfs-discuss] PCI-E CF adapter?

On January 14, 2010 1:08:56 PM -0500 Frank Cusack wrote: I know this is slightly OT but folks discuss zfs compatible hardware here all the time. :) Has anyone used something like this combination? <http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1346664> <http://www.cdw.com/shop

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On February 2, 2010 4:31:47 PM -0500 Miles Nordin wrote: and FCoE is just dumb if you have IB, honestly. by FCoE are you talking about iSCSI? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-d

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On February 2, 2010 2:17:30 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote: http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/vms_vs_unix.html interesting page, if somewhat dated. e.g. maybe it wasn't true at the time but don't we now know from the SCO lawsuit that SCO does indeed own "UNIX"? as long as we're OT. :) _

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On February 2, 2010 11:58:12 AM -0800 Simon Breden wrote: IIRC the Black range are meant to be the 'performance' models and so are a bit noisy. What's your opinion? And the 2TB models are not cheap either for a home user. The 1TB seem a good price. And from what little I read, It depends what

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On February 2, 2010 12:08:13 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote: Not exactly unix, but there's still VMS clusters running around out there with 100% uptime for over 20 years. I wouldn't mind seeing it opened up. Agreed, I'd love to see that opened up. Might even give it new life. __

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On February 2, 2010 11:58:17 AM -0600 Tim Cook wrote: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: On February 2, 2010 8:57:32 AM -0800 Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: I love that Sun shares their products for free. Which other big Unix vendor doe

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On February 2, 2010 8:57:32 AM -0800 Orvar Korvar wrote: I love that Sun shares their products for free. Which other big Unix vendor does that? Who's left? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/l

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

http://www.memoryx.net/5410456.html I've bought sleds for X4150s and X2270s from them. interesting mis-description on the web page. thumper doesn't use SCA drives. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolar

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool status output confusing

On February 1, 2010 4:15:10 PM -0500 Frank Cusack wrote: On February 1, 2010 1:09:21 PM -0700 Cindy Swearingen wrote: Whether disk swapping on the fly or a controller firmware update renumbers the devices causes a problem really depends on the driver-->ZFS interaction and we can't s

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool status output confusing

On February 1, 2010 1:09:21 PM -0700 Cindy Swearingen wrote: Whether disk swapping on the fly or a controller firmware update renumbers the devices causes a problem really depends on the driver-->ZFS interaction and we can't speak for all hardware. With mpxio disks are known by multiple names.

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool status output confusing

On February 1, 2010 10:19:24 AM -0700 Cindy Swearingen wrote: ZFS has recommended ways for swapping disks so if the pool is exported, the system shutdown and then disks are swapped, then the behavior is unpredictable and ZFS is understandably confused about what happened. It might work for some

Re: [zfs-discuss] Home ZFS NAS - 2 drives or 3?

On February 1, 2010 11:59:14 AM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: One idea I seriously considered is to boot off a USB key. No online redundancy (but I'd keep a second loaded key, plus the files to quickly reimage a new key, handy). I've just built my first USB-booting zfs system. I took the pl

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs rpool mirror on non-equal drives

On January 30, 2010 10:27:41 AM -0800 Michelle Knight wrote: I did this as a test because I am aware that zpools don't like drives switching controlers without being exported first. They don't mind it at all. It's one of the great things about zfs. What they do mind is being remounted on a s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 24, 2010 12:20:55 PM -0800 "R.G. Keen" wrote: I do apologize for the snottier parts of my reply to your first note, which I am editing. I did not get a chance to read this note from you before responding. Oh not at all. Snotty is as snotty does. um, what that is supposed to mean i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 24, 2010 8:26:07 AM -0800 "R.G. Keen" wrote: “Fewer/bigger versus more/smaller drives”: Tim and Frank have worked this one over. I made the choice based on wanting to get a raidz3 setup, for which more disks are needed than raidz or raidz2. This idea comes out of the time-to-resilver

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 24, 2010 8:26:07 AM -0800 "R.G. Keen" wrote: In my case, I got 0.75TB drives for $58 each. The cost per bit is bigger than buying 1TB or 1.5TB drives, all right, but I can buy more of them, and that lets me put another drive on for the next level of error correction data. That's th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 24, 2010 8:41:00 AM -0800 Erik Trimble wrote: an external JBOD chassis, not a server chassis. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 24, 2010 11:45:57 AM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote: On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 06:39:25PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote: Smaller devices cost more $/GB; ie they are more expensive. Usually, other than the very largest (most recent) drives, that are still at a premium price. Yes, I should

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 23, 2010 8:23:08 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote: I bet you'll get the same performance out of 3x1.5TB drives you get out of 6x500GB drives too. Yup. And if that's the case, probably you want to go with the 3 drives because your operating costs (power consumption) will be less. Are you

Re: [zfs-discuss] customizing "zfs list" with less typing

On January 23, 2010 4:33:59 PM -0800 "Richard L. Hamilton" wrote: It might be nice if "zfs list" would check an environment variable for a default list of properties to show (same as the comma-separated list used with the -o option). If not set, it would use the current default list; if set, it

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs mounts don't follow child filesystems?

On January 23, 2010 6:53:26 PM -0600 Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Frank Cusack wrote: Notice that the referenced path is subordinate to the exported zfs filesystem. Well, assuming there is a single home zfs filesystem and not a filesystem-per-user. For filesystem-per-user

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 23, 2010 6:09:49 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote: When you've got a home system and X amount of dollars to spend, $/GB means absolutely nothing when you need a certain number of drives to have the redundancy you require. Don't you generally need a certain amount of GB? I know I plan my sto

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs mounts don't follow child filesystems?

On January 23, 2010 2:17:12 PM -0600 Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Frank Cusack wrote: I thought with NFS4 *on solaris* that clients would follow the zfs filesystem hierarchy and mount sub-filesystems. That doesn't seem to be happening and I can't find any documenta

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 23, 2010 1:20:13 PM -0800 Richard Elling My theory is that drives cost $100. Obviously you're not talking about Sun drives. :) -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 23, 2010 5:17:16 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote: Smaller devices get you to raid-z3 because they cost less money. Therefore, you can afford to buy more of them. I sure hope you aren't ever buying for my company! :) :) Smaller devices cost more $/GB; ie they are more expensive. -frank ___

[zfs-discuss] zpool status -x not as documented

zpool status [-xv] [pool] ... Displays the detailed health status for the given pools. ... -xOnly display status for pools that are exhibiting errors or are otherwise unavailable. # zpool status -x all pools are healthy # zpool status -x rpool p

  1   2   3   4   >