On 25 June 2012 11:33, wrote:
>
>>Does someone know the history which led to the EPERM for unlink() of
>>directories on ZFS? Why was this done this way, and not something like
>>allowing the unlink and execute it on the next scrub or remount?
>
>
> It's not about the unlink(), it's about the link
>> To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other
>> filesystems and I think ZFS was created this way because all modern
>> filesystems do it that way.
>
>This may be wrong way to go if it breaks existing applications which
>rely on this feature. It does break applications in our
On 26 June 2012 14:51, wrote:
>
>>> To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other
>>> filesystems and I think ZFS was created this way because all modern
>>> filesystems do it that way.
>>
>>This may be wrong way to go if it breaks existing applications which
>>rely on this feat
>We've already asked our Netapp representative. She said it's not hard
>to add that.
And symlinks don't work for this? I'm amazed because we're talking about
the same file system. Or is it that the code you have does the
hardlinking?
If you want this rfo Oracle, you would need to talk to
On 06/26/12 05:46 AM, Lionel Cons wrote:
> On 25 June 2012 11:33, wrote:
>> To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other
>> filesystems and I think ZFS was created this way because all modern
>> filesystems do it that way.
>
> This may be wrong way to go if it breaks existing
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
> On 06/26/12 05:46 AM, Lionel Cons wrote:
>> On 25 June 2012 11:33, wrote:
>>> To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other
>>> filesystems and I think ZFS was created this way because all modern
>>> filesystems do it t
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:41:14AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Alan Coopersmith
> wrote:
> > On 06/26/12 05:46 AM, Lionel Cons wrote:
> >> On 25 June 2012 11:33, wrote:
> >>> To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other
> >>> filesystems and
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Lionel Cons
wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 14:51, wrote:
> We've already asked our Netapp representative. She said it's not hard
> to add that.
Did NetApp tell you that they'll add support for using the NFSv4 LINK
operation on source objects that are directories?! I'
Hello everybody,
I recently migrated a file server (NFS & Samba) from OpenSolaris (Build 111) to
Sol11. This the move we are facing random (or random looking) outages of our
Samba. As we have moved several folders (like Desktop and ApplicationData) out
of the usual profile to a folder inside th
2012-06-26 23:57, Carsten John wrote:
Hello everybody,
I recently migrated a file server (NFS & Samba) from OpenSolaris (Build 111) to
Sol11.
> (After?) the move we are facing random (or random looking) outages of
our Samba...
As for the timeouts, check if your tuning (i.e. the migrated file
Hello all,
I am revising an older OpenSolaris file-server before an upgrade
to OI, and this server uses COMSTAR to publish some zvols via iSCSI.
As I revised the procedure used to set it up originally, I remember
that the initial OpenSolaris iSCSI stack performed poorer, but only
it was integra
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> 1) Is COMSTAR still not-integrated with shareiscsi ZFS attributes?
> Or can the pool use the attribute, and the correct (new COMSTAR)
> iSCSI target daemon will fire up?
I can't speak for Solaris 11, but for illumos, you need to use the
stm
2012-06-27 1:00, Bill Pijewski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
1) Is COMSTAR still not-integrated with shareiscsi ZFS attributes?
Or can the pool use the attribute, and the correct (new COMSTAR)
iSCSI target daemon will fire up?
I can't speak for Solaris 11, bu
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:23:42PM -0500, Timothy Coalson wrote:
> Sorry, if you meant distinguishing between true 512 and emulated
> 512/4k, I don't know, it may be vendor-specific as to whether they
> expose it through device commands at all.
>
At least on Linux you can see the info from:
/sys
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 01:42:27AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:23:42PM -0500, Timothy Coalson wrote:
> > Sorry, if you meant distinguishing between true 512 and emulated
> > 512/4k, I don't know, it may be vendor-specific as to whether they
> > expose it through devic
-Original message-
CC: ZFS Discussions ;
From: Jim Klimov
Sent: Tue 26-06-2012 22:34
Subject:Re: [zfs-discuss] snapshots slow on sol11?
> 2012-06-26 23:57, Carsten John wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > I recently migrated a file server (NFS & Samba) from OpenSolaris (Bu
16 matches
Mail list logo
