Did you try rm -- filename ?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 23, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Somehow I touched some rather peculiar file names in ~. Experimenting
> with something I've now forgotten I guess.
>
> Anyway I now have 3 zero length files with names -O, -c, -k.
>
> I've tri
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 17:05 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>> Linder, Doug wrote:
>> > Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering
>> > - how does ZFS make money for Oracle when they don't charge for it? Do
>
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwal
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to
>>> linux.
>>> When we posted our progress
In the meantime, you can use autofs to do something close to this if
you like (sort of like the pam_mkhomedir module) -- you can have it
execute a script that returns the appropriate auto_user entry (given a
username as input). I wrote one a long time ago that would do a zfs
create if the dataset
Well the GUI I think is just Windows, it's all just APIs that are
presented to windows.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
>> From: jason.brian.k...@gmail.com [mailto:jason.brian.k...@gmail.com] On
>> Behalf Of Jason King
>>
>> If you're
If you're just wanting to do something like the netapp .snapshot
(where it's in every directory), I'd be curious if the CIFS shadow
copy support might already have done a lot of the heavy lifting for
this. That might be a good place to look
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Peter Jeremy
wrote:
> On
It still has the issue that the end user has to know where the root of
the filesystem is in the tree (assuming it's even accessible on the
system -- might not be for an NFS mount).
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote
ISTR POSIX also doesn't allow a number of features that can be turned
on with zfs (even ignoring the current issues that prevent ZFS from
being fully POSIX compliant today). I think an additional option for
the snapdir property ('directory' ?) that provides this behavior (with
suitable warnings ab
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:06 AM, David Magda wrote:
> On Wed, March 31, 2010 21:25, Bart Smaalders wrote:
>
>> ZFS root will be the supported root filesystem for Solaris Next; we've
>> been using it for OpenSolaris for a couple of years.
>
> This is already supported:
>
>> Starting in the Solaris 1
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Brett wrote:
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Im in a shop thats very resistant to change. The management here are
>> looking for major justification of a move away from ufs to zfs for root file
>> systems. Does anyone know if there are any whitepapers/b
Did you try adding:
nfs4: mode = special
vfs objects = zfsacl
To the shares in smb.conf? While we haven't done extensive work on
S10, it appears to work well enough for our (limited) purposes (along
with setting the acl properties to passthrough on the fs).
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at
Could also try /usr/gnu/bin/ls -U.
I'm working on improving the memory profile of /bin/ls (as it gets
somewhat excessive when dealing with large directories), which as a
side effect should also help with this.
Currently /bin/ls allocates a structure for every file, and doesn't
output anything unt
If you're doing anything with ACLs, the GNU utilities have no
knowledge of ACLs, so GNU chmod will not modify them (nor will GNU ls
show ACLs), you need to use /bin/chmod and /bin/ls to manipulate them.
It does sound though that GNU chmod is explicitly testing and skipping
any entry that's a link
My problem is when you have 100+ luns divided between OS and DB,
keeping track of what's for what can become problematic. It becomes
even worse when you start adding luns -- the chance of accidentally
grabbing a DB lun instead of one of the new ones is non-trivial (then
there's also the chance th
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jim Mauro wrote:
> Using ZFS for Oracle can be configured to deliver very good performance.
> Depending on what your priorities are in terms of critical metrics, keep in
> mind
> that the most performant solution is to use Oracle ASM on raw disk devices.
> That is
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
>
> We have an open bug which results in new directories created over NFSv4
> from a linux client having the wrong group ownership. While waiting for a
> patch to resolve the issue, we have a script running hourly on the server
> which finds d
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> Michael Schuster wrote:
>>
>> Mike Gerdts wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Mikko Lammi wrote:
Hello,
As a result of one badly designed application running loose for some
time,
we now seem to have
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Erik Ableson wrote:
>>
>> Much depends on the contents of the files. Fixed size binary blobs that
>> align nicely with 16/32/64k boundaries, or variable sized text files.
>
> Note that the default zfs block size is 128K a
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>
> fyi
>
> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
>> XXX wrote:
>>>
>>> | Have you actually tried to roll-back to previous uberblocks when you
>>> | hit the issue? I'm asking as I haven't yet heard about any case
>>> | of the issue witch was not solved
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Enda O'Connor wrote:
>
>
> Jason King wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> Dale Ghent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So looking at the README for patch 14144[45]-09,
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> Dale Ghent wrote:
>>
>> So looking at the README for patch 14144[45]-09, there are ton of ZFS
>> fixes and feature adds.
>>
>> The big features are already described in the update 8 release docs, but
>> would anyone in-the-know care to comment
It does seem to come up regularly... perhaps someone with access could
throw up a page under the ZFS community with the conclusions (and
periodic updates as appropriate)..
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>>
>> While I am about to embark on building a home NAS
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Neal Pollack wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, they do quite a bit more than that. They create jobs, generate
>>> revenue for battery manufacturers, and tech's that change batteries and do
>>> PM maintena
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Jan Hlodan wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
>
> thanks for the answer.
> Unfortunately, it didn't help much.
> However I can mount all file systems, but system is broken - desktop
> wont come up.
>
> "Could not update ICEauthority file /.ICEauthority
> There is a problem with the
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Darin Perusich
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I'm in the process of migrating a file server from Solaris 9, where
> we're making extensive use of POSIX-ACLs, to ZFS and I have a question
> that I'm hoping someone can clear up for me. I'm using ufsrestore to
> restore the
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 21:41:32 -0500, David Magda
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 6, 2009, at 14:21, Rob wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously ZFS is ideal for large databases served out via
>>> application level or web servers. But what other practical ways are
>>> there to
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I haven't used a J4500, but when we had an x4500 (Thumper) on loan they
> had Solaris pretty well integrated with the hardware. When a disk failed, I
> used cfgadm to offline it and as soon as I did that a bright blue "Ready
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Mike Gerdts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mike Gerdts wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
Instead we should take it comple
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Dave Koelmeyer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All, first time caller here, so please be gentle...
>
> I'm on OpenSolaris 2008.05, and following the really useful guide here to
> create a CIFs share in domain mode:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/configuri
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:59 PM, EchoB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cannot recall if it was this (-discuss) or (-code) but a post a few
> months ago caught my attention.
> In it someone detailed having worked out the math and algorithms for a
> flexible expansion scheme for ZFS. Clearly this is
Edit the kernel$ line and add '-k' at the end. That should drop you
into the kernel debugger after the panic (typing '$q' will exit the
debugger, and resume whatever it was doing -- in this case likely
rebooting).
On Dec 18, 2007 6:26 PM, Michael Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwa
hat the entire sequence of events is here,
> so I'm not sure if there's a bug. Perhaps you could elaborate.
>
> Lori
>
> Jason King wrote:
> > Apparently with zfs boot, if the zpool is a version grub doesn't
> > recognize, it merely ignores any zfs en
Apparently with zfs boot, if the zpool is a version grub doesn't
recognize, it merely ignores any zfs entries in menu.lst, and
apparently instead boots the first entry it thinks it can boot. I ran
into this myself due to some boneheaded mistakes while doing a very
manual zfs / install at the summi
On 9/25/07, Gregory Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:09 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> Dale Ghent wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> The problem with this is that wrong information is much worse than no
> information, there is no way to automat
On 9/13/07, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:54:41AM -0600, Lori Alt wrote:
> > In-place upgrade of zfs datasets is not supported and probably
> > never will be (LiveUpgrade will be the way to go with zfs because
> > the cloning features of zfs make it a natu
Just playing around a bit w/ zfs + zfs root (no particularly good
reason other than to just mess around a bit), and I hit an issue that
I suspect is simple to fix, but I cannot seem to figure out what that
is.
I wanted to try (essentially) doing a very manual install to an empty
zfs filesystem.
So
I've had at least some success (tried it once so far) doing a BFU to cloned
filesystem from a b62 zfs root system, I could probably document that if
there is interest.
I have not tried taking a new ISO and installing the new packages ontop of a
cloned fileystem though.
On 5/31/07, Lori Alt <[EMA
I tried it and it worked great. Even cloned my boot environment, and BFU'd the
clone and it seemed to work (minus a few unrelated annoyances I haven't tracked
down yet). I'm quite excited about the possibilities :)
I am wondering though, is it possible to skip the creation of the pool and have
Anxiously anticipating the ability to boot off zfs, I know there's been some
talk about leveraging some of the snapshotting/cloning features in conjunction
with upgrades and patches.
What I am really hoping for is the ability to clone /, patch the clone, then
boot off the clone (by doing a clon
39 matches
Mail list logo
