[zfs-discuss] IRC: thought: irc.freenode.net #zfs for platform-agnostic or multi-platform discussion

We have and and the other channels listed at AND growing discussion of ZFS in Mac- 'FUSE- and Linux-oriented channels BUT unless I'm missing something, no IRC channel for ZFS. Please: * which IRC channel will be best for discussion of Z

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS

On 08/06/07, BVK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/8/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) > I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris. I think that's ex

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Toby Thain wrote: On 8-Jun-07, at 3:13 AM, BVK wrote: On 6/8/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their Mach based (?) BSD and switch

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS

On 8-Jun-07, at 3:13 AM, BVK wrote: On 6/8/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris. Many think this would be

[zfs-discuss] Re: SMART

> You are right... I shouldn't post in the middle of > the night... nForce chipsets don't support AHCI. Btw. does anybody have a status update for bug 6296435, "native sata driver needed for nVIDIA mcp04 and mcp55 controllers" http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6296435 ? C

[zfs-discuss] ZFS and Partitioning Questions

Couple of questions regarding ZFS: First, can slices and vdevs be removed from a pool? It appears to only want to remove a hotspare from a pool, which makes sense, however is there some work around that will migrate data off of a vdev and thus allow you to remove it? (In this case it was simply

Re: [zfs-discuss] IRC: thought: irc.freenode.net #zfs for platform-agnostic or multi-platform discussion

Graham Perrin wrote: We have and and the other channels listed at AND growing discussion of ZFS in Mac- 'FUSE- and Linux-oriented channels BUT unless I'm missing something, no IRC channel for ZFS. Please: * which IRC channel will be be

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, BVK wrote: > File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like > Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their > improvements may never get back into the community. But that can't happen (to files that Apple modifies at least): the CDDL dictate

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: SMART

On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:51:17AM -0700, J?rgen Keil wrote: > > You are right... I shouldn't post in the middle of > > the night... nForce chipsets don't support AHCI. > > Btw. does anybody have a status update for bug 6296435, > "native sata driver needed for nVIDIA mcp04 and mcp55 controllers"

Re: [zfs-discuss] Holding disks for home servers

I only see 15 disks in your CM stacker. I designed and built a system for work with the CMStacker and relocated the power and IO panel from the top slot to the side cover (where the spot for a small fan is) and it works great. A single Seasonic 600AS powers the entire system nicely with PF of

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee

>> 1. ZFS atomic operation that commits data. >> 2. Writes come into the app. >> 3. The db put in hotbackup mode. >> 4. Snapshot taken on storage. >> 5. ZFS atomic operation that commits data. >> >> So if i do a snap restore, ZFS might revert to point1, but from the db >> perspective, it is inconsi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS

On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Rich Teer wrote: On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, BVK wrote: File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their improvements may never get back into the community. But that can't happen (to files t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee

> >> 1. ZFS atomic operation that commits data. > >> 2. Writes come into the app. > >> 3. The db put in hotbackup mode. > >> 4. Snapshot taken on storage. > >> 5. ZFS atomic operation that commits data. > >> > >> So if i do a snap restore, ZFS might revert to point1, but from the db= > > >> perspe

[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee

Thanks Darren, so a sync should do the job for me in that case. How about locking the FS so that i dont miss any new writes further on?. Anything similar to lockfs?. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@op

[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS with expanding LUNs

Did we ever get a reply to this?, As somebody mentioned, the generic answer was "use ZFS", but i never got to know how. I havent tried it myself but i was curious to know since i will be implementing ZFS shortly. This message posted from opensolaris.org __

[zfs-discuss] Re: Resizing lun.

Hi Eric, Is zfs dynamic lun expansion possible now?. thanks! Ganes This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee

> Thanks Darren, so a sync should do the job for me in that case. How > about locking the FS so that i dont miss any new writes further on?. I'm not sure I understand what you might miss here. Normally you'd ask your application to make itself consistent, take a snapshot, then when the snapshot w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS

On 6/8/07, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, BVK wrote: > File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like > Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their > improvements may never get back into the community. But that can't happen (to fil

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS

On 6/8/07, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 08/06/07, BVK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like > Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their > improvements may never get back into the community. Apple have giv