[zfs-discuss] renumbering and its potential side effects.

disconcerting situation as i have no idea what the effects of this controller renumbering may be. i may have had a pool that had 5x9+1 layout, that would have used c6t0d0 and c6t4d0... puzzled and concerned... oz -- ozan s. yigit | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | o: 416-348-1540 if you want to have your head

[zfs-discuss] zfs magic still missing

sigh, ZFS bits *still* not identified in /etc/magic. bug 6446509 open since july 16... thumper# file /ocean/backup/[EMAIL PROTECTED] /ocean/backup/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:data [should have said "ZFS snapshot stream"] -- ozan s. yigit | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | o: 416-348-1540 if you want to

Re: [zfs-discuss] boot disks & controller layout...

ah, good stuff. thanks. oz Richard Elling [in response to my question] wrote: ozan s. yigit wrote: ... is there any reason why factory install comes with C5T0 and C5T4? a limitation of the bios or some other reason i am missing? (i may need to RTFM harder... :) BIOS limitation

[zfs-discuss] # devices in raidz.

] thanks... oz -- ozan s. yigit | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 416 977 1414 x 1540 I have a hard time getting enough time to do even trivial blogging: being truly thoughtful takes a lot of time. -- james gosling ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] s10u3 query

can someone please confirm if hot spares are supported in s10u3? thanks. oz -- ozan s. yigit | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://nextbit.blogspot.com an open mind is no substitute for hard work -- nelson goodman ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] adding to a raidz pool and its discontents

he -f flag when you added the single disk vdev? nope. thanks for the demo from nevada build. eric -- ozan s. yigit | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://nextbit.blogspot.com you take a banana, you get a lunar landscape. -- j. van wijk ___ zfs-discuss mailin

Re: [zfs-discuss] adding to a raidz pool and its discontents

away by the addition, it would be useful to generate a warning and maybe require -f or something... oz David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On 10/25/06, ozan s. yigit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ah. looks like the new disk is not a part of the raidz set, yet the diskspace in the pool inc

[zfs-discuss] adding to a raidz pool and its discontents

bits that happen to fall into the raidz set but not the additional disk? i am confused about the overall failure characteristics of such a setup. [maybe it is a boneheaded thing to do, but one gets no warning from zpool if it is...] thanks oz -- ozan s. yigit | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http

[zfs-discuss] q: zfs on das

s, i will be glad to share my notes in a few weeks.] oz -- ozan s. yigit | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 416 977 1414 x 1540 an open mind is no substitute for hard work -- nelson goodman ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris

[zfs-discuss] no automatic clearing of "zoned" eh?

s10u2, once zoned, always zoned? i see that zoned property is not cleared after removing the dataset from a zone cfg or even uninstalling the entire zone... [right, i know how to clear it by hand, but maybe i am missing a bit of magic otherwise anodyne zonecfg et al.] oz -- ozan s. yigit