> These days I am a fan for forward check access lists, because any one who
> owns a DNS server can say that for IPAddressX returns aserver.google.com.
> They can not set the forward lookup outside of their domain but they can
> setup a reverse lookup. The other advantage is forword looking access
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 16:24, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> The purpose of the ZIL is to act like a fast "log" for synchronous
>> writes. It allows the system to quickly confirm a synchronous write
>> request with the minimum amount of work.
>
> Bob and Casper and some others clearly know a lot her
>> OpenSolaris needs support for the TRIM command for SSDs. This command is
>> issued to an SSD to indicate that a block is no longer in use and the SSD
>> may erase it in preparation for future writes.
>
> There does not seem to be very much `need' since there are other ways that a
> SSD can know
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 19:19, David Magda wrote:
> On Mon, April 12, 2010 12:28, Tomas Ögren wrote:
>> On 12 April, 2010 - David Magda sent me these 0,7K bytes:
>>
>>> On Mon, April 12, 2010 10:48, Tomas Ögren wrote:
>>>
>>> > For flash to overwrite a block, it needs to clear it first.. so yes,
>
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 16:23, wrote:
>
>
>>I understand you cannot lookup names by inode number in general, because
>>that would present a security violation. Joe User should not be able to
>>find the name of an item that's in a directory where he does not have
>>permission.
>>
>>
>>
>>But, even
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 16:49, wrote:
>
>
>>No, a NFS client will not ask the NFS server for a name by sending the
>>inode or NFS-handle. There is no need for a NFS client to do that.
>
> The NFS clients certainly version 2 and 3 only use the "file handle";
> the file handle can be decoded by the
> If the kernel (or root) can open an arbitrary directory by inode number,
> then the kernel (or root) can find the inode number of its parent by looking
> at the '..' entry, which the kernel (or root) can then open, and identify
> both: the name of the child subdir whose inode number is already k
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 23:37, Sandon Van Ness wrote:
> I just wanted to make sure this is normal and is expected. I fully
> expected that as the file-system filled up I would see more disk space
> being used than with other file-systems due to its features but what I
> didn't expect was to lose o
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:00, Hua wrote:
> I understand that usually zfs need to be created inside a zpool to store
> files/data.
>
> However, I quick test shows that I actually can put files directly inside a
> mounted zpool without creating any zfs.
>
> After
> zpool create -f tank c0d1
>
> I
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 18:08, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:53 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:22 +, Moritz Willers wrote:
>>
>>> The host identity had - of course - changed with the new motherboard
>>> and it no longer recognised the zpool as its own
>> Is there better solution to this problem, what if the machine crashes?
>>
>
> Crashes are abnormal conditions. If it crashes you should fix the problem to
> avoid future crashes and probably you will need to clear the pool dir
> hierarchy prior to import the pool.
Are you serious? I really hope
> I have already run into one little snag that I don't see any way of
> overcoming with my chosen method. I've upgraded to snv_129 with high hopes
> for getting the most out of deduplication. But using iSCSI volumes I'm not
> sure how I can gain any benefit from it. The volumes are a set size
>> UFS is a totally different issue, sync writes are always sync'ed.
>>
>> I don't work for Sun, but it would be unusual for a company to accept
>> willful negligence as a policy. Ambulance chasing lawyers love that
>> kind of thing.
>
> The Thor replaces a geriatric Enterprise system running Sola
>> I'm not sure how to go about it. Basically, how should i format my
>> drives in FreeBSD, create a ZPOOL which can be imported into OpenSolaris.
>
> I'm not sure about BSD, but Solaris ZFS works with whole devices. So there
> isn't any OS specific formatting involved. I assume BSD does the sa
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 04:36, Ian Collins wrote:
> Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how to go about it. Basically, how should i format my
>>>> drives in FreeBSD, create a ZPOOL which can be imported into
>>>> OpenSolaris.
&g
>>> An EFI label isn't "OS specific formatting"!
>>
>> It is. Not all OS will read an EFI label.
>
> You misunderstood the concept of OS specific, I feel. EFI is indeed OS
> independent; however, that doesn't necesssarily imply that all OSs can read
> EFI disks. My Commodore 128D could boot CP/M bu
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 18:16, Brad wrote:
> @eric
>
> "As a general rule of thumb, each vdev has the random performance
> roughly the same as a single member of that vdev. Having six RAIDZ
> vdevs in a pool should give roughly the performance as a stripe of six
> bare drives, for random IO."
>
>
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 19:23, roland wrote:
> making transactional,logging filesystems thin-provisioning aware should be
> hard to do, as every new and every changed block is written to a new location.
> so what applies to zfs, should also apply to btrfs or nilfs or similar
> filesystems.
If t
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 16:40, Gary Gendel wrote:
> I've been using a 5-disk raidZ for years on SXCE machine which I converted to
> OSOL. The only time I ever had zfs problems in SXCE was with snv_120, which
> was fixed.
>
> So, now I'm at OSOL snv_111b and I'm finding that scrub repairs errors
>> Ext2/3 uses 5% by default for root's usage; 8% under FreeBSD for FFS.
>> Solaris (10) uses a bit more nuance for its UFS:
>
> That reservation is to preclude users to exhaust diskspace in such a way
> that ever "root" can not login and solve the problem.
No, the reservation in UFS/FFS is to kee
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:14, Lutz Schumann
wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> beeing a Linux Guy I'm actually quite new to Opensolaris. One thing I miss is
> udev.
> I found that when using SATA disks with ZFS - it always required manual
> intervention (cfgadm) to do SATA hot plug.
>
> I would like to au
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 02:54, Darin Perusich
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I'm sure this has been discussed previously but I haven't been able to find an
> answer to this. I've added another raidz1 vdev to an existing storage pool and
> the increased available storage isn't reflected in the 'zfs list'
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 06:59, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think the value you can take from this is:
>> Why does the BPG say that? What is the reasoning behind it?
>>
>> Anything that is a "rule of thumb" either has reasoning be
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 15:27, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: pantz...@gmail.com [mailto:pantz...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> Mattias Pantzare
>>
>> It
>> is about 1 vdev with 12 disk or 2 vdev with 6 disks. If you have 2
>> vdev you have to read half the d
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:15, Markus Kovero wrote:
>
>
>> Such configuration was known to cause deadlocks. Even if it works now (which
>> I don't expect to be the case) it will make your data to be cached twice.
>> The CPU utilization > will also be much higher, etc.
>> All in all I strongly re
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 08:48, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
> Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>>
>> ZFS needs free memory for writes. If you fill your memory with dirty
>> data zfs has to flush that data to disk. If that disk is a virtual
>> disk in zfs on the same computer those w
2008/7/20 James Mauro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there an optimal method of making a complete copy of a ZFS, aside from the
> conventional methods (tar, cpio)?
>
> We have an existing ZFS that was not created with the optimal recordsize.
> We wish to create a new ZFS with the optimal recordsize (8k
> 4. While reading an offline disk causes errors, writing does not!
>*** CAUSES DATA LOSS ***
>
> This is a big one: ZFS can continue writing to an unavailable pool. It
> doesn't always generate errors (I've seen it copy over 100MB
> before erroring), and if not spotted, this *will* cause da
> Therefore, I wonder if something like block unification (which seems to be
> an old idea, though I know of it primarily through Venti[1]) would be useful
> to ZFS. Since ZFS checksums all of the data passing through it, it seems
> natural to hook those checksums and have a hash table from checks
2008/8/10 Jonathan Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm in the very unsettling position of fearing that I've lost all of my data
> via a zfs send/receive operation, despite ZFS's legendary integrity.
>
> The error that I'm getting on restore is:
> receiving full stream of faith/[EMAIL
2008/8/13 Jonathan Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So far we've established that in this case:
> *Version mismatches aren't causing the problem.
> *Receiving across the network isn't the issue (because I have the exact same
> issue restoring the stream directly on
> my file server).
> *All that's l
2008/8/15 Nils Goroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I thought that this question must have been answered already, but I have
> not found any explanations. I'm sorry in advance if this is redundant, but:
>
> Why exactly doesn't ZFS let me detach a device from a degraded mirror?
>
> haggis:~# zpool
2008/8/26 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Doing a good job with this error is mostly about not freezing
>> the whole filesystem for the 30sec it takes the drive to report the
>> error.
>
> That is not a ZFS problem. Please file bugs in the appropriate category.
Who's problem is it? It ca
2008/8/27 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
Either the drives should be loaded with special firmware that
returns errors earlier, or the software LVM should read redundant data
and collect the statistic if the drive is well outside its usual
response latency.
>>>
>>> ZF
2008/9/3 Jerry K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello Bob,
>
> Thank you for your reply. Your final sentence is a gem I will keep.
>
> As far as the rest, I have a lot of production server that are (2) drive
> systems, and I really hope that there is a mechanism to quickly R&R dead
> drives, resilvering a
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Anon K Adderlan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do I add my own Attributes to a ZAP object, and then search on it?
>
> For example, I want to be able to attach the gamma value to each image, and
> be able to search and
> sort them based on it. From reading the o
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> bounce
>
> Can anybody confirm how bug 6729696 is going to affect a busy system running
> synchronous NFS shares? Is the sync activity from NFS
> going to be enough to prevent resilvering from ever working, or have I
> mis-unders
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Peter Baumgartner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a 7x150GB drive (+1 spare) raidz pool that I need to expand.
> There are 6 open drive bays, so I bought 6 300GB drives and went to
> add them as a raidz vdev to the existing zpool, but I didn't realize
> the raid
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Peter Baumgartner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Mattias Pantzare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Peter Baumgartner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I have a 7x150GB dri
>> Planning to stick in a 160-gig Samsung drive and use it for lightweight
>> household server. Probably some Samba usage, and a tiny bit of Apache &
>> RADIUS. I don't need it to be super-fast, but slow as watching paint dry
>> won't
>
> You know that you need a minimum of 2 disks to form a
> I think you're confusing our clustering feature with the remote
> replication feature. With active-active clustering, you have two closely
> linked head nodes serving files from different zpools using JBODs
> connected to both head nodes. When one fails, the other imports the
> failed node's pool
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 00:46, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Leventhal wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:48:25PM +0100, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That is _not_ active-active, that is active-passive.
>>>
>&g
> Interestingly, the "size" fields under "top" add up to 950GB without getting
> to the bottom of the list, yet it
> shows NO swap being used, and 150MB free out of 768 of RAM! So how can the
> size of the existing processes
> exceed the size of the virtual memory in use by a factor of 2, and th
> If the critical "working set" of VM pages is larger than available
> memory, then the system will become exceedingly slow. This is
> indicated by a substantial amount of major page fault activity.
> Since disk is 10,000 times slower than RAM, major page faults can
> really slow things down drama
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 22:19, Ray Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pantzer5: Thanks for the "top" "size" explanation.
>
> Re: eeprom kernelbase=0x8000
> So this makes the kernel load at the 2G mark? What is the default, something
> like C00... for 3G?
Yes on both questions (i have not c
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 00:04, Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>>
>> The big difference in memory usage between UFS and ZFS is that ZFS
>> will have all data it caches mapped in the kernel address space.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 01:10, Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>>>
>>> Another big difference I have heard about is that Solaris 10 on x86 only
>>> uses something like 64MB of filesystem cach
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:30, Carsten Aulbert
wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Marc Bevand wrote:
>> Carsten Aulbert aei.mpg.de> writes:
>>> In RAID6 you have redundant parity, thus the controller can find out
>>> if the parity was correct or not. At least I think that to be true
>>> for Areca controllers
> Now I want to mount that external zfs hdd on a different notebook running
> solaris and
> supporting zfs as well.
>
> I am unable to do so. If I'd run zpool create, it would wipe out my external
> hdd what I of
> course want to avoid.
>
> So how can I mount a zfs filesystem on a different machi
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 20:03, Tim wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Brian Wilson
> wrote:
>>
>> Does creating ZFS pools on multiple partitions on the same physical drive
>> still run into the performance and other issues that putting pools in slices
>> does?
>
>
> Is zfs going to own
>>
>> ZFS will always flush the disk cache at appropriate times. If ZFS
>> thinks that is alone it will turn the write cache on the disk on.
>
> I'm not sure if you're trying to argue or agree. If you're trying to argue,
> you're going to have to do a better job than "zfs will always flush disk
>
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 20:55, SQA wrote:
> I set up a ZFS system on a Linux x86 box.
>
> [b]> zpool history
>
> History for 'raidpool':
> 2009-01-15.17:12:48 zpool create -f raidpool raidz1 c4t1d0 c4t2d0 c4t3d0
> c4t4d0 c4t5d0
> 2009-01-15.17:15:54 zfs create -o mountpoint=/vol01 -o sharenfs=on -
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 19:33, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
> How do I set the number of copies on a snapshot ? Based on the error
> message, I believe that I cannot do so.
>I already have a number of clones based on this snapshot, and would
> like the snapshot to have more copies now.
>
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 22:12, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Thanks I think I get it now.
>
> Do you think having log on a 15K RPM drive with the main pool composed of 10K
> RPM drives will show worthwhile improvements? Or am I chasing a few
> percentage points?
>
> I don't have money for new hardware &
> What filesystem likes it when disks are pulled out from a LIVE
> filesystem? Try that on UFS and you're f** up too.
Pulling a disk from a live filesystem is the same as pulling the power
from the computer. All modern filesystems can handle that just fine.
UFS with logging on do not even need fsc
>
> Right, well I can't imagine it's impossible to write a small app that can
> test whether or not drives are honoring correctly by issuing a commit and
> immediately reading back to see if it was indeed committed or not. Like a
> "zfs test cXtX". Of course, then you can't just blame the hardwar
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 19:18, Nicolas Williams
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:05:31AM -0800, Christopher Mera wrote:
>> I recently read up on Scott Dickson's blog with his solution for
>> jumpstart/flashless cloning of ZFS root filesystem boxes. I have to say
>> that it initially looks to w
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 23:57, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Moore, Joe wrote:
>
>> As far as workload, any time you use RAIDZ[2], ZFS must read the entire
>> stripe (across all of the disks) in order to verify the checksum for that
>> data block. This means that a 128k read (the
>> I suggest ZFS at boot should (multi-threaded) scan every disk for ZFS
>> disks, and import the ones with the correct host name and with a import flag
>> set, without using the cache file. Maybe just use the cache file for non-EFI
>> disk/partitions, but without the storing the pool name, but you
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 22:15, Richard Elling wrote:
> Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suggest ZFS at boot should (multi-threaded) scan every disk for ZFS
>>>> disks, and import the ones with the correct host name and with a import
>>>> flag
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 00:21, Tim wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Mattias Pantzare
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If I put my disks on a diffrent controler zfs won't find them when I
>> boot. That is bad. It is also an extra level of complexity.
>
&
> MP> It would be nice to be able to move disks around when a system is
> MP> powered off and not have to worry about a "cache" when I boot.
>
> You don't have to unless you are talking about share disks and
> importing a pool on another system while the original is powered off
> and the pool was n
>
>> A useful way to obtain the mount point for a directory is with the
>> df' command. Just do 'df .' while in a directory to see where its
>> filesystem mount point is:
>>
>> % df .
>> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
>> Sun_2540/home/bfriesen
>>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:38, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks, Fajar, et al.
>
> What this thread actually shows, alas, is that ZFS is rocket science.
> In 2009, one would expect a file system to 'just work'. Why would
> anyone wa
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:54, Ellis, Mike wrote:
> Wow... that's seriously cool!
>
> Throw in some of this... http://www.nexenta.com/demos/auto-cdp.html and
> now we're really getting somewhere...
>
>
> Nice to see this level of innovation here. Anyone try to employ these
> types of techniques o
O> I feel like I understand what tar is doing, but I'm curious about what is it
> that ZFS is looking at that makes it a "successful" incremental send? That
> is, not send the entire file again. Does it have to do with how the
> application (tar in this example) does a file open, fopen(), and what
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 06:03, Bob
Friesenhahn wrote:
> I am still trying to determine why Solaris 10 (Generic_141415-03) ZFS
> performs so terribly on my system. I blew a good bit of personal life
> savings on this set-up but am not seeing performance anywhere near what is
> expected. Testing wit
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 08:25, lf yang wrote:
> Hi Guys
> I have a SunFire X4200M2 and the Xyratex RS1600 JBOD which I try to
> run the ZFS on it.But I found a problem:
> I set mpxio-disable="yes" in the /kernel/drv/fp.conf to enable the MPxIO,
I assume you mean mpxio-disable="no"
> and set load
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:33, Markus Kovero wrote:
> During our tests we noticed very disturbing behavior, what would be causing
> this?
>
> System is running latest stable opensolaris.
>
> Any other means to remove ghost files rather than destroying pool and
> restoring from backups?
You may hav
n
find those with:
fuser -c /testpool
But if you can't find the space after a reboot something is not right...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pantz...@gmail.com [mailto:pantz...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mattias
> Pantzare
> Sent: 24. heinäkuuta 2009 10:56
>
> If they accept virtualisation, why can't they use individual filesystems (or
> zvol) rather than pools? What advantage do individual pools have over
> filesystems? I'd have thought the main disadvantage of pools is storage
> flexibility requires pool shrink, something ZFS provides at the filesy
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:45, Ian Collins wrote:
> Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>>>
>>> If they accept virtualisation, why can't they use individual filesystems
>>> (or
>>> zvol) rather than pools? What advantage do individual pools have over
>>> fi
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 16:59, Ross wrote:
> But why do you have to attach to a pool? Surely you're just attaching to the
> root
> filesystem anyway? And as Richard says, since filesystems can be shrunk
> easily
> and it's just as easy to detach a filesystem from one machine and attach to
> it
>> > Adding another pool and copying all/some data over to it would only
>> > a short term solution.
>>
>> I'll have to disagree.
>
> What is the point of a filesystem the can grow to such a huge size and
> not have functionality built in to optimize data layout? Real world
> implementations of fi
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 20:20, Ed Spencer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 08:14, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>
>> Your scalability problem may be in your backup solution.
> We've eliminated the backup system as being involved with the
> performance issues.
>
> The serve
>>> It would be nice if ZFS had something similar to VxFS File Change Log.
>>> This feature is very useful for incremental backups and other
>>> directory walkers, providing they support FCL.
>>
>> I think this tangent deserves its own thread. :)
>>
>> To save a trip to google...
>>
>> http://sfdo
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 22:22, Paul Kraus wrote:
> Posted from the wrong address the first time, sorry.
>
> Is the speed of a 'zfs send' dependant on file size / number of files ?
>
> We have a system with some large datasets (3.3 TB and about 35
> million files) and conventional backups tak
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:34, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Carson Gaspar wrote:
>>
>> Erik Trimble wrote:
>> > I haven't see this specific problem, but it occurs to me thus:
>>>
>>> For the reverse of the original problem, where (say) I back up a 'zfs
>>> send' stream to tape, then later on, after upgr
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 13:34, David Magda wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 06:52, Chris Ridd wrote:
>
>> Does zpool destroy prompt "are you sure" in any way? Some admin tools do
>> (beadm destroy for example) but there's not a lot of consistency.
>
> No it doesn't, which I always found strange.
>
> P
> Thanks for the info. Glad to hear it's in the works, too.
It is not in the works. If you look at the bug IDs in the bug database
you will find no indication of work done on them.
>
> Paul
>
>
> 1:21pm, Mark J Musante wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Paul Archer wrote:
>>
>>> I may have missed
2007/6/10, arb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hello, I'm new to OpenSolaris and ZFS so my apologies if my questions are naive!
I've got solaris express (b52) and a zfs mirror, but this command locks up my
box within 5 seconds:
% cmp first_4GB_file second_4GB_file
It's not just these two 4GB files, any s
2007/6/25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I wouldn't de-duplicate without actually verifying that two blocks were
>actually bitwise identical.
Absolutely not, indeed.
But the nice property of hashes is that if the hashes don't match then
the inputs do not either.
I.e., the likelyhood
> The problems I'm experiencing are as follows:
> ZFS creates the storage pool just fine, sees no errors on the drives, and
> seems to work great...right up until I attempt to put data on the drives.
> After only a few moments of transfer, things start to go wrong. The system
> doesn't power o
2007/9/23, James L Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm a small-time sysadmin with big storage aspirations (I'll be honest
> - for a planned MythTV back-end, and *ahem*, other storage), and I've
> recently discovered ZFS. I'm thinking about putting together a
> homebrew SAN with a NAS head, and am wond
2007/10/12, Krzys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello all, sorry if somebody already asked this or not. I was playing today
> with
> iSCSI and I was able to create zpool and then via iSCSI I can see it on two
> other hosts. I was courious if I could use zfs to have it shared on those two
> hosts but apar
2007/11/9, Anton B. Rang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The comment in the header file where this error is defined says:
>
> /* volume is too large for 32-bit system */
>
> So it does look like it's a 32-bit CPU issue. Odd, since file systems don't
> normally have any sort of dependence on the CPU type
2007/11/10, asa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello all. I am working on an NFS failover scenario between two
> servers. I am getting the stale file handle errors on my (linux)
> client which point to there being a mismatch in the fsid's of my two
> filesystems when the failover occurs.
> I understand th
2008/2/13, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I saw some other people have a similar problem but reports claimed this was
> 'fixed in release 42' which is many months old, I'm running the latest
> version. I made a RAIDz2 of 8x500GB which should give me a 3TB pool:
>
Disk manufacturers use ISO units, w
> >
> > If you created them after, then no worries, but if I understand
> > correctly, if the *file* was created with 128K recordsize, then it'll
> > keep that forever...
>
>
> Files have nothing to do with it. The recordsize is a file system
> parameter. It gets a little more complicated be
2008/2/17, Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I am attempting to create per-user ZFS filesystems under an exported
> /home ZFS filesystem. This would work fine except that the
> ownership/permissions settings applied to the mount point of those
> per-user filesystems on the server are not seen
2008/2/17, Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
> >
> > Have the clients mounted your per-user filesystems? It is not enough
> > to mount /home.
>
> It is enough to mount /home if the client is Solaris 10. I did not
> I've just put my first ZFS into production, and users are complaining about
> some regressions.
>
> One problem for them is that now, they can't see all the users directories in
> the automount point: the homedirs used to be part of a single UFS, and were
> browsable with the correct autofs op
2008/3/6, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 11:39:25AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I think it's specfically problematic on 32 bit systems with large amounts
> > of RAM. Then you run out of virtual address space in the kernel quickly;
> > a small amount
> > 2. in a raidz do all the disks have to be the same size?
>
>
> I think this one has been answered, but I'll add/ask this: I'm not sure what
> would
> happen if you had 3x 320gb and 3x 1tb in a 6 disk raidz array. I know you'd
> have a
> 6 * 320gb array, but I don't know if the unused space
2008/3/7, Paul Kraus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:56 PM, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1. In zfs can you currently add more disks to an existing raidz? This is
> important to me
> > as i slowly add disks to my system one at a time.
> >
> > No, but solaris and linux ra
2008/5/24 Hernan Freschi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I let it run while watching TOP, and this is what I got just before it hung.
> Look at free mem. Is this memory allocated to the kernel? can I allow the
> kernel to swap?
No, the kernel will not use swap for this.
But most of the memory used by th
> A single /var/mail doesn't work well for 10,000 users either. When you
> start getting into that scale of service provisioning, you might look at
> how the big boys do it... Apple, Verizon, Google, Amazon, etc. You
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /var/mail >echo *|wc
1 20632 185597
[EMAIL PROTECT
2008/6/6 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>>> A single /var/mail doesn't work well for 10,000 users
>>> either. When you
>>> start getting into that scale of service
>>> provisioning, you might look at
>>> how the big boys do it... Apple, Verizon, Google,
>>> Amazon
>>
>> The problem with that argument is that 10.000 users on one vxfs or UFS
>> filesystem is no problem at all, be it /var/mail or home directories.
>> You don't even need a fast server for that. 10.000 zfs file systems is
>> a problem.
>>
>> So, if it makes you happier, substitute mail with home
2008/6/21 Andrius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
> there is a small confusion with send receive.
>
> zfs andrius/sounds was snapshoted @421 and should be copied to new zpool
> beta that on external USB disk.
> After
> /usr/sbin/zfs send andrius/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ssh host1 /usr/sbin/zfs recv
> beta
>
100 matches
Mail list logo
