> 0n Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:12AM -0700, Rich
> Teer wrote:
> >Summary: Solaris Express Community Edition
> (SXCE) is like the OpenSolaris
> >of old; OpenSolaris .xx is apparently Sun's
> intended future direction
> >for Solaris. Based on what I've heard, I've not
> tried the latter.
my hunch is you need to boot from live cd (in virtual box case, iso) and
installgrub -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 $diskB_root_slice
Ivan.
Currently grub hasn't been installed for disk attached to root mirror later.
> Hi all,
>
> after installing OpenSolaris 2008.05 in VirtualBox
> I
> I see, thanks.
> And as Jörg said, I only need a 64 bit binary. I
> didn't know, but there is one for ls, and it does
> work as expected:
>
> $ /usr/bin/amd64/ls -l .gtk-bookmarks
> -rw-r--r-- 1 user opc0 oct. 16 2057
> .gtk-bookmarks
>
> This is a bit absurd. I thought Solaris
> Ian Collins wrote:
> > Thanks for the heads up.
> >
> > I'm building a new file server at the moment and
> I'd like to make sure I
> > can migrate to ZFS boot when it arrives.
> >
> > My current plan is to create a pool on 4 500GB
> drives and throw in a
> > small boot drive.
> >
> > Will I be ab
>
> Ivan Wang wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > However, this raises another concert that during
> recent discussions regarding to disk layout of a zfs
> system
> (http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=
> 25679&tstart=0) it was said that cur
HI all,
Recently zfs boot is delivered in scheduled b62, so is there any words when and
how may we use live upgrade with zfs root? Since I only use SXCR now and
sometimes you just need to boot to older BE in case of a no-so-good build, live
upgrade becomes very handy for me on that.
Cheers,
I
So any date on when install utility will support zfs root fresh install?
almost can't wait for that.
Cheers,
Ivan.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 09:43:39PM -0700, Anton B.
> Rang wrote:
> >
> > That's only one cause of panics.
> >
> > At least two of gino's panics appear due to
> corrupted space maps, for
> > instance. I think there may also still be a case
> where a failure to
> > read metadata during a transact
> > If i put the database in hotbackup mode,then i will
> have to ensure
> > that the filesystem is consistent as well.So, you
> are saying that
> > taking a ZFS snapshot is the only method to
> guarantee consistency in
> > the filesystem since it flushes all the buffers to
> the filesystem , so
>
> This bug was rendered moot via 6528732 in build
> snv_68 (and s10_u5). We
> now store physical devices paths with the vnodes, so
> even though the
> SATA framework doesn't correctly support open by
> devid in early boot, we
But if I read it right, there is still a problem in SATA framework (fai
Hi all,
Forgive me if this is a dumb question. Is it possible for a two-disk mirrored
zpool to be seamlessly enlarged by gradually replacing previous disk with
larger one?
Say, in a constrained desktop, only space for two internal disks is available,
could I just begin with two 160G disks, the
> > Erik Trimble wrote:
> > After both drives are replaced, you will automatically see the
> > additional space.
>
> I believe currently after the last replace an
> import/export sequence
> is needed to force zfs to see the increased size.
What if root fs is also in this pool? will there be any
ow, estimating size of a zfs root pool is still
required, better not to go with a carefree grow-as-needed mindset.
Ivan.
>
> Ivan Wang wrote:
> >>> Erik Trimble wrote:
> >>> After both drives are replaced, you will
> automatically see the
> >>> add
> What does 'which chmod' show? I think that Indiana
> chose to have
> /usr/gnu/bin at the head of the path, so you're
> probably picking up the
> GNU chmod, which doesn't handle NFSv4 ACLs. Manually
> running
> /usr/bin/chmod should solve your problem.
Would it be better if this issue is brough
Moving to indiana-discuss..
Please do not start battling each other, bringing this issue to indiana-discuss
is only to show potential gotcha when assuming a specific PATH setting in
utilities/scripts
Cheers,
Ivan
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
Hi Lori,
Do you happen to know any update on Live Update zfs support?
Thanks,
Ivan.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Ivan Wang wrote:
>
> > Hi Lori,
> >
> > Do you happen to know any update on Live Update zfs
> support?
>
> You mean Live Upgrade? It's being worked on as we
> speak to make it
> zfs-aware. It should be available at the sa
> Hello andrew,
>
> Thursday, April 24, 2008, 11:03:48 AM, you wrote:
>
> a> What is the reasoning behind ZFS not enabling the
> write cache for
> a> the root pool? Is there a way of forcing ZFS to
> enable the write cache?
>
> The reason is that EFI labels are not supported for
> booting.
IIRC
> Steve,
>
> > Can someone tell me or point me to links that
> describe how to
> > do the following.
> >
> > I had a machine that crashed and I want to move to
> a newer machine
> > anyway. The boot disk on the old machine is fried.
> The two disks I
> was
> using for a zfs pool on that machi
> Richard Elling wrote:
> > For ZFS, there are some features which conflict
> with the
> > notion of user quotas: compression, copies, and
> snapshots come
> > immediately to mind. UFS (and perhaps VxFS?) do
> not have
> > these features, so accounting space to users is
> much simpler.
> > Indeed,
20 matches
Mail list logo
