>
> Could you described into more detail your config and share some
> comments on it? Looks like its unique.
How much detail do you want? Nothing special, there was just a chance to
do something right (or perhaps more sane). Not that there is anything
wrong with the legacy system, but keeping u
Hello Jorgen,
Friday, March 21, 2008, 7:55:36 AM, you wrote:
JL> We've gone live, and the x4500 is working out rather well. 170,000
JL> accounts so far, all with quota are working.
JL> But one day we found our quotas file went from 30M to:
JL> -rw--- 1 root root 137438953472 Ma
We've gone live, and the x4500 is working out rather well. 170,000
accounts so far, all with quota are working.
But one day we found our quotas file went from 30M to:
-rw--- 1 root root 137438953472 Mar 21 09:35
/export/zero/quotas
I assume it is sparse, and everything still w
Shawn Ferry wrote:
>> It would be tempting to add the bootadm update-archive to the boot
>> process, as I would rather have it come up half-assed, than not come
>> up at all.
> It is part of the shutdown process, you just need to stop crashing :)
I put a cron entry that does it manually every
Shawn Ferry wrote:
>
> It is part of the shutdown process, you just need to stop crashing :)
>
That looks like a good idea on paper, but what other unforeseen
side-effects will we get from not crashing?!
Apart from the one crash with quotacheck, it is currently running quite
well. It updat
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:27 AM, Jorgen Lundman wrote:
>
>
> Shawn Ferry wrote:
>> Jorgen,
>>
>> You may want to try running 'bootadm update-archive'
>>
>> Assuming that your boot-archive problem is an out of date boot-
>> archive
>> message at boot and/or doing a clean reboot to let the system try
Shawn Ferry wrote:
> Jorgen,
>
> You may want to try running 'bootadm update-archive'
>
> Assuming that your boot-archive problem is an out of date boot-archive
> message at boot and/or doing a clean reboot to let the system try to
> write an up to date boot-archive.
Yeah, it is remembering to
Jorgen,
You may want to try running 'bootadm update-archive'
Assuming that your boot-archive problem is an out of date boot-archive
message at boot and/or doing a clean reboot to let the system try to
write an up to date boot-archive.
I would also encourage you to connect the LOM to the network
NOC staff couldn't reboot it after the quotacheck crash, and I only just
got around to going to the Datacenter. This time I disabled NFS, and
the rsync that was running, and ran just quotacheck and it completed
successfully. The reason it didn't boot what that damned boot-archive
again. Serio
J.P. King wrote:
>> Wow, that a neat idea, and crazy at the same time. But the mknod's minor
>> value can be 0-262143 so it probably would be doable with some loss of
>> memory and efficiency. But maybe not :) (I would need one lofi dev per
>> filesystem right?)
>>
>> Definitely worth remembering i
Hello Jorgen,
Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 2:22:07 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> I don't know... while it will work I'm not sure I would trust it.
>> Maybe just use Solaris Volume Manager with Soft Partitioning + UFS and
>> forget about ZFS in your case?
JL> Well, the idea was to see if it could replace
PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorgen Lundman
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:22 AM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
>
> I don't know... while i
>
> I don't know... while it will work I'm not sure I would trust it.
> Maybe just use Solaris Volume Manager with Soft Partitioning + UFS and
> forget about ZFS in your case?
Well, the idea was to see if it could replace the existing NetApps as
that was what Jonathan promised it could do, and
Hello Jorgen,
Monday, December 10, 2007, 5:53:31 AM, you wrote:
JL> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello Jorgen,
>>
>> Honestly - I don't think zfs is a good solution to your problem.
>>
>> What you could try to do however when it comes to x4500 is:
>>
>> 1. Use SVM+UFS+user quotas
JL> I am now
Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello Jorgen,
>
> Honestly - I don't think zfs is a good solution to your problem.
>
> What you could try to do however when it comes to x4500 is:
>
> 1. Use SVM+UFS+user quotas
I am now trying zfs -V 1Tb and newfs'ed ufs on that device. This looks
like a potential
Hello Jorgen,
Honestly - I don't think zfs is a good solution to your problem.
What you could try to do however when it comes to x4500 is:
1. Use SVM+UFS+user quotas
2. Use zfs and create several (like up-to 20? so each stays below 1TB)
ufs file systems on zvols and then apply user quotas on
Thank you all for your input and ideas, it has been an interesting time.
I have ended up with the following conclusions, some of which are
specific to our circumstance.
* lofs
Having all zfs file-systems as one export, would have been very
attractive, but unfortunately, lofs will only
Found them. They are all under the second layer file-system.
# zfs set mountpoint=/mnt zpool1/mail/m/e/0/0/zfs_without_quota
# cd /export/mail/m/e/0/0/zfs_without_quota
# ls -l
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:28 foo
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 16:04 roger
I am still having issues with lofs even.
I have created 2329 home directories, each with a "mail" directory
inside it.
zfs original: /export/mail/
lofs mount: /export/test/
# find /export/test/mail/m/e/0/0/ -name mail | wc -l
2327
NFS client: mount /export/test/
# ls -l /export/test/mail/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> I made the mistake of umount -f /net/x4500/export/mail, even when autofs
>>> was disabled, and now all I get is I/O Errors.
>>>
>>> Is it always this sensitive?
>> "umount -f" is a power tool with no guard. If you had local
>> apps using the filesystem, they would
>> I made the mistake of umount -f /net/x4500/export/mail, even when autofs
>> was disabled, and now all I get is I/O Errors.
>>
>> Is it always this sensitive?
>
>"umount -f" is a power tool with no guard. If you had local
>apps using the filesystem, they would have seen I/O errors
>as well.
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
>
>> SXCE is coming out _very_ soon. But all of your clients need
>> to support NFSv4 mount point crossing to make full use of it,
>> unless the automounter works out well enough.
>>
>
> Ahh, that's a shame.. Automounter works sufficiently at the moment, but
> it does not
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:40:57PM +0900, Jorgen Lundman wrote:
>
> Ah it's a somewhat mis-leading error message:
>
> bash-3.00# mount -F lofs /zpool1/test /export/test
> bash-3.00# share -F nfs -o rw,anon=0 /export/test
> Could not share: /export/test: invalid path
> bash-3.00# umount /export/te
Ah it's a somewhat mis-leading error message:
bash-3.00# mount -F lofs /zpool1/test /export/test
bash-3.00# share -F nfs -o rw,anon=0 /export/test
Could not share: /export/test: invalid path
bash-3.00# umount /export/test
bash-3.00# zfs set sharenfs=off zpool1/test
bash-3.00# mount -F lofs /zpool
>
> I can not export lofs on NFS. Just gives invalid path,
Tell that to our mirror server.
-bash-3.00$ /sbin/mount -p | grep linux
/data/linux - /linux lofs - no ro
/data/linux - /export/ftp/pub/linux lofs - no ro
-bash-3.00$ grep linux /etc/dfs/sharetab
/linux - nfs ro Linux dire
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
>
>> You're confusing lofi and lofs, I think. Have a look at man lofs.
>>
>> Now all _I_ would like is translucent options to that and I'd solve one
>> of my major headaches.
I can not export lofs on NFS. Just gives invalid path, and:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdata
> You're confusing lofi and lofs, I think. Have a look at man lofs.
>
> Now all _I_ would like is translucent options to that and I'd solve one
> of my major headaches.
>
That I am. I have never used lofs, looks interesting. Thanks.
--
Jorgen Lundman | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unix Adm
> Wow, that a neat idea, and crazy at the same time. But the mknod's minor
> value can be 0-262143 so it probably would be doable with some loss of
> memory and efficiency. But maybe not :) (I would need one lofi dev per
> filesystem right?)
>
> Definitely worth remembering if I need to do somethi
>
> SXCE is coming out _very_ soon. But all of your clients need
> to support NFSv4 mount point crossing to make full use of it,
> unless the automounter works out well enough.
>
Ahh, that's a shame.. Automounter works sufficiently at the moment, but
it does not work well with discovering ne
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
>> NFSv4 will let the client cross mount points transparently;
>> this is implemented in Nevada build 77, and in Linux and AIX.
>
> Looks like I have 70b only. Wonder what the chances are of another
> release coming out in the 2 month trial period.
>
> Does only the x4500 n
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
> Software we use are the usual. Postfix with dovecot, apache with
> double-hash, https with TLS/SNI, LDAP for provisioning, pure-ftpd, DLZ,
> freeradius. No local config changes needed for any setup, just ldap and
> netapp.
I meant your client operating systems, actually
>
> /export/www/com/e/p/example/ for "example.com". The quota is only at the
> "example/" level. But the complicated issue is that it could be any depth.
>
> Can automount even do that? Guess my next stop is automount documentation.
I should have played first, then sent the emails. If I use the
Marion Hakanson wrote:
> The downside is that you do lose some of the flexibility of ZFS, mainly
> that snapshots are now done on whole UFS filesystems (zvol's), and access
> to snapshots is not available via the .zfs/snapshot/ path. ZFS ACL's on
> the individual file level are also not possible
>
> NFSv4 will let the client cross mount points transparently;
> this is implemented in Nevada build 77, and in Linux and AIX.
Looks like I have 70b only. Wonder what the chances are of another
release coming out in the 2 month trial period.
Does only the x4500 need to run Nevada 77, or would
>
> I believe that if you lofs mount the filesystems under, say, /export you
> can share that directory and have all the subdirectories appear.
Wow, that a neat idea, and crazy at the same time. But the mknod's minor
value can be 0-262143 so it probably would be doable with some loss of
memory
J.P.King,
Richard Elling,
Robert Thurlow,
Marion Hakanson,
Thank you for replying. My apologies if I was a bit extreme, the local
Sun people do not speak English, and it is my fault for not speaking
sufficient Japanese, and the Sunsolve forums appear not to be the place
to post questions to Sun
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> From Googling, it seems suggested that I use automount, which would cut out
> any version of Unix without automount, either from the age of the OS (early
> Sun might be ok still?) and Unix flavours without automount.
Some users have reported "solving" this issue by crea
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
> *** NFS Option
>
> Start:
>
> Since we need quota per user, I need to create a file-system of
> size=$quota for each user.
>
> But NFS will not let you cross mount-point/file-systems so mounting just
> "/export/mail/" means I will not see any directory below that.
NFS
Are you using sendmail (or something like it)? It is well known that
having mail clients NFS mount the mail spool is not scalable. That
is one reason why IMAP is so popular in large scale e-mail systems.
I suggest you look at using something designed to scale, such as the
Sun Java Communications
> (I don't suppose there is some hack to let me cross file-systems?)
I believe that if you lofs mount the filesystems under, say, /export you
can share that directory and have all the subdirectories appear.
We certainly do that for a single directory at a time.
> On the NFS client side, this wo
Original Message
Subject: Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:46:33 +0900
From: Jorgen Lundman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hello list;
We are users of NetApps, currently needing to expand. We thought to try
a x4500 since Jon
41 matches
Mail list logo
