Hi,
Habony, Zsolt writes:
> You have an application filesystem from one LUN. (vxfs is expensive, ufs/svm
> is not really able to handle online filesystem increase. Thus we plan to use
> zfs for application filesystems.)
What do you mean by "not really"?
Use metattach to grow a metadevice or sof
David Hopwood writes:
> Note also that mounting a filesystem read-only does not guarantee that
> the disk will not be written, because of atime updates (this is arguably
> a Unix design flaw, but still has to be taken into account). So r may
I can mount with the -noatime option.
> I don't understa
Ronald,
thanks for your comments.
I was thinking about this scenario:
Host w continuously has a UFS mounted with read/write access.
Host w writes to the file f/ff/fff.
Host w ceases to touch anything under f.
Three hours later, host r mounts the file system read-only,
reads f/ff/fff, and unmount
Tim,
thanks for answering...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
...but please don't send HTML, if possible.
>
> Try this explanation..
>
> Host A mounts UFS file system rw
> Hosts B-C mount sam UFS file system read only
>
> In natural scheme of things hosts B-C read files and cache
> metadata about the
Ronald Kuehn writes:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 16:36:26 CEST, Rainer J.H. Brandt wrote:
>
> > Ronald Kuehn writes:
> > > No. You can neither access ZFS nor UFS in that way. Only one
> > > host can mount the file system at the same time (read/write or
>
Sorry, this is a bit off-topic, but anyway:
Ronald Kuehn writes:
> No. You can neither access ZFS nor UFS in that way. Only one
> host can mount the file system at the same time (read/write or
> read-only doesn't matter here).
I can see why you wouldn't recommend trying this with UFS
(only one ho
