On 07/14/10 03:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Fri, July 9, 2010 16:49, BJ Quinn wrote:
I have a couple of systems running 2009.06 that hang on relatively large
zfs send/recv jobs. With the -v option, I see the snapshots coming
across, and at some point the process just pauses, IO and CP
I was going with the spring release myself, and finally got tired of waiting.
Got to build some new servers.
I don't believe you've missed anything. As I'm sure you know, it was
originally officially 2010.02, then it was officially 2010.03, then it was
rumored to be .04, sort of leaked as .0
On Fri, July 9, 2010 18:42, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:49 PM, BJ Quinn wrote:
>> I have a couple of systems running 2009.06 that hang on relatively large
>> zfs send/recv jobs. With the -v option, I see the snapshots coming
>> across, and at some point the process just pa
On Fri, July 9, 2010 16:49, BJ Quinn wrote:
> I have a couple of systems running 2009.06 that hang on relatively large
> zfs send/recv jobs. With the -v option, I see the snapshots coming
> across, and at some point the process just pauses, IO and CPU usage go to
> zero, and it takes a hard reboo
Actually my current servers are 2008.05, and I noticed the problems I was
having with 2009.06 BEFORE I put those up as the new servers, so my pools are
not too new to revert back to 2008.11, I'd actually be upgrading from 2008.05.
I do not have paid support, but it's just not going to go over we
On 07/13/10 06:48 AM, BJ Quinn wrote:
Yeah, it's just that I don't think I'll be allowed to put up a dev version, but
I would probably get away with putting up 2008.11 if it doesn't have the same
problems with zfs send/recv. Does anyone know?
That would be a silly thing to do. Your pool
Yeah, it's just that I don't think I'll be allowed to put up a dev version, but
I would probably get away with putting up 2008.11 if it doesn't have the same
problems with zfs send/recv. Does anyone know?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:04 AM, BJ Quinn wrote:
> I'm actually only running one at a time. It is recursive / incremental (and
> hundreds of GB), but it's only one at a time. Was there still problems in
> 2009.06 in that scenario?
>
> Does 2008.11 have these problems? 2008.05 didn't, and I'm
I'm actually only running one at a time. It is recursive / incremental (and
hundreds of GB), but it's only one at a time. Was there still problems in
2009.06 in that scenario?
Does 2008.11 have these problems? 2008.05 didn't, and I'm considering moving
back to that rather than using a develo
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:49 PM, BJ Quinn wrote:
> I have a couple of systems running 2009.06 that hang on relatively large zfs
> send/recv jobs. With the -v option, I see the snapshots coming across, and
> at some point the process just pauses, IO and CPU usage go to zero, and it
> takes a har
On 07/10/10 09:49 AM, BJ Quinn wrote:
I have a couple of systems running 2009.06 that hang on relatively large zfs
send/recv jobs. With the -v option, I see the snapshots coming across, and at
some point the process just pauses, IO and CPU usage go to zero, and it takes a
hard reboot to get b
I have a couple of systems running 2009.06 that hang on relatively large zfs
send/recv jobs. With the -v option, I see the snapshots coming across, and at
some point the process just pauses, IO and CPU usage go to zero, and it takes a
hard reboot to get back to normal. The same script running
12 matches
Mail list logo
