[...]
> There is a way to do this kind of object to name
> mapping, though there's no documented public
> interface for it. See zfs_obj_to_path() function and
> ZFS_IOC_OBJ_TO_PATH ioctl.
>
> I think it should also be possible to extend it to
> handle multiple names (in case of multiple hardlinks)
One can rename a zpool on import
zpool import -f pool_or_id newname
Is there any way to rename it (back again, perhaps)
on export?
(I had to rename rpool in an old disk image to access
some stuff in it, and I'd like to put it back the way it
was so it's properly usable if I ever want to boot off
[...]
> To answer Richard's question, if you have to rename a
> pool during
> import due to a conflict, the only way to change it
> back is to
> re-import it with the original name. You'll have to
> either export the
> conflicting pool, or (if it's rpool) boot off of a
> LiveCD which
> doesn't use
> I've googled this for a bit, but can't seem to find
> the answer.
>
> What does compression bring to the party that dedupe
> doesn't cover already?
>
> Thank you for you patience and answers.
That almost sounds like a classroom question.
Pick a simple example: large text files, of which each
Another thought is this: _unless_ the CPU is the bottleneck on
a particular system, compression (_when_ it actually helps) can
speed up overall operation, by reducing the amount of I/O needed.
But storing already-compressed files in a filesystem with compression
is likely to result in wasted effort
AFAIK, zfs should be able to protect against (if the pool is redundant), or at
least
detect, corruption from the point that it is handed the data, to the point
that the data is written to permanent storage, _provided_that_ the system
has ECC RAM (so it can detect and often correct random backgroun
> Losing ZFS would indeed be disastrous, as it would
> leave Solaris with
> only the Veritas File System (VxFS) as a semi-modern
> filesystem, and a
> non-native FS at that (i.e. VxFS is a 3rd-party
> for-pay FS, which
> severely inhibits its uptake). UFS is just way to old
> to be competitive
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>
> > It is true there's no new build published in the
> last 3 months. But you
> > can't use that to assume they're killing the
> community.
>
> Hmm, the community seems to think they're killing the
> community:
>
> http://developers.slashd
> never make it any better. Just for a record: Solaris
> 9 and 10 from Sun
> was a plain crap to work with, and still is
> inconvenient conservative
> stagnationware. They won't build a free cool tools
Everybody but geeks _wants_ stagnationware, if you means
something that just runs. Even my old
> > It'd be handy to have a mechanism where
> applications could register for
> > snapshot notifications. When one is about to
> happen, they could be told
> > about it and do what they need to do. Once all the
> applications have
> > acknowledged the snapshot alert--and/or after a
> pre-set timeou
> Even the most expensive decompression algorithms
> generally run
> significantly faster than I/O to disk -- at least
> when real disks are
> involved. So, as long as you don't run out of CPU
> and have to wait for
> CPU to be available for decompression, the
> decompression will win. The
> same
FYI, the arc and arc-discuss lists or forums are not appropriate for this.
There are
two "arc" acronyms:
* Architecture Review Committee (arc list is for cases being considered,
arc-discuss is for
other discussion. Non-committee business is most unwelcome on the arc list.)
* the ZFS Adaptive
It might be nice if "zfs list" would check an environment variable for
a default list of properties to show (same as the comma-separated list
used with the -o option). If not set, it would use the current default list;
if set, it would use the value of that environment variable as the list.
I fin
> Just make 'zfs' an alias to your version of it. A
> one-time edit
> of .profile can update that alias.
Sure; write a shell function, and add an alias to it.
And use a quoted command name (or full path) within the function
to get to the real command. Been there, done that.
But to do a good job
Typically on most filesystems, the inode number of the root
directory of the filesystem is 2, 0 being unused and 1 historically
once invisible and used for bad blocks (no longer done, but kept
reserved so as not to invalidate assumptions implicit in ufsdump tapes).
However, my observation seems to
Hmm...according to
http://www.mail-archive.com/vbox-users-commun...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00640.html
that's only needed before VirtualBox 3.2, or for IDE. >= 3.2, non-IDE should
honor flush requests, if I read that correctly.
Which is good, because I haven't seen an example of how to enabling
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles
> Nordin wrote:
> > >> Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from
> Windows?
> >
> > no, not under my proposal.
>
> Then your proposal is a non-starter. Support for
> multiple remote
> filesystem access protocols is key for ZFS and
> Solari
I have sharesmb=on set for a bunch of filesystems,
including three that weren't mounted. Nevertheless,
all of those are advertised. Needless to say,
the one that isn't mounted can't be accessed remotely,
even though since advertised, it looks like it could be.
# zfs list -o name,mountpoint,share
PS obviously these are home systems; in a real environment,
I'd only be sharing out filesystems with user or application
data, and not local system filesystems! But since it's just
me, I somewhat trust myself not to shoot myself in the foot.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
> On 10/28/10 08:40 AM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> > I have sharesmb=on set for a bunch of filesystems,
> > including three that weren't mounted.
> Nevertheless,
> all of those are advertised. Needless to say,
> the one that isn't mounted can't be ac
This is not the appropriate group/list for this message.
Crossposting to zfs-discuss (where it perhaps primarily
belongs) and to cifs-discuss, which also relates.
> Hi,
>
> I have an I/O load issue and after days of searching
> wanted to know if anyone has pointers on how to
> approach this.
>
>
arc-discuss doesn't have anything specifically to do with ZFS;
in particular, it has nothing to do with the ZFS ARC. Just an
unfortunate overlap of acronyms.
Cross-posted to zfs-discuss, where this probably belongs.
> Hey all1
>
> Recently I've decided to implement OpenSolaris as a
> target fo
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > Reasonable enough guess, but no, no compression,
> nothing like that;
> > nor am I running anything particularly demanding
> most of the time.
> >
> > I did have the volblocksize set down to 512 for
Cute idea, maybe. But very inconsistent with the size in blocks (reported by
ls -dls dir).
Is there a particular reason for this, or is it one of those just for the heck
of it things?
Granted that it isn't necessarily _wrong_. I just checked SUSv3 for stat() and
sys/stat.h,
and it appears tha
> "Richard L. Hamilton" wrote:
>
> > Cute idea, maybe. But very inconsistent with the
> size in blocks (reported by ls -dls dir).
> > Is there a particular reason for this, or is it one
> of those just for the heck of it things?
> >
> > Gran
...such that a snapshot (cloned if need be) won't do what you want?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I hope there will be consideration given to providing compatibility with UFS
quotas
(except that inode limits would be ignored). At least to the point of having
edquota(1m)
quot(1m)
quota(1m)
quotactl(7i)
repquota(1m)
rquotad(1m)
and possibly quotactl(7i) work with zfs (with the exception previ
If I understand correctly, at least some systems claim not to guarantee
consistency between changes to a file via write(2) and changes via mmap(2).
But historically, at least in the case of regular files on local UFS, since
Solaris
used the page cache for both cases, the results should have been c
If I create a mirror, presumably if possible I use two or more identically
sized devices,
since it can only be as large as the smallest. However, if later I want to
replace a disk
with a larger one, and detach the mirror (and anything else on the disk),
replace the
disk (and if applicable repar
> Yes, this is supported now. Replacing one half of a
> mirror with a larger device;
> letting it resilver; then replacing the other half
> does indeed get a larger mirror.
> I believe this is described somewhere but I can't
> remember where now.
Thanks; I sure didn't see the answer on the zpool m
_FIOSATIME - why doesn't zfs support this (assuming I didn't just miss it)?
Might be handy for backups.
Could/should zfs support a new ioctl, constrained if needed to files of
zero size, that sets an explicit (and fixed) blocksize for a particular
file? That might be useful for performance in spe
and does it vary by filesystem type? I know I ought to know the
answer, but it's been a long time since I thought about it, and
I must not be looking at the right man pages. And also, if it varies,
how does one tell? For a pipe, there's fpathconf() with _PC_PIPE_BUF,
but how about for a regular f
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 06:55:17PM -0700, Anton B.
> Rang wrote:
> > It's not defined by POSIX (or Solaris). You can
> rely on being able to
> > atomically write a single disk block (512 bytes);
> anything larger than
> > that is risky. Oh, and it has to be 512-byte
> aligned.
> >
> > File syste
You've ruled out most of what there is to talk about on the subject, I think.
If the licenses are incompatible (regardless of which if either is better),
then a Linux distro probably couldn't just include ZFS.
Now maybe (assuming ZFS were ported, which I doubt anybody would bother
with until a rea
BTW, flash drives have a filesystem too; AFAIK, it's usually pretty much
just FAT32, which is garbage, but widely supported, so that you
can plug them in just about anywhere. In most cases, one can put
some other filesystem on them, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility
that that might not work
So you're talking about not just reserving something for on-disk compatibility,
but also maybe implementing these for Solaris? Cool. Might be fairly useful
for hardening systems (although as long as someone had raw device access,
or physical access, they could of course still get around it; that
> I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war.
> But why do Linux
> contributors not deserve the right to retain their
> choice of license
> as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder,
> does?
>
> The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is
> astonishing. The
> BSD lice
Well, no; his quote did say "software or hardware". The theory is apparently
that ZFS can do better at detecting (and with redundancy, correcting) errors
if it's dealing with raw hardware, or as nearly so as possible. Most SANs
_can_ hand out raw LUNs as well as RAID LUNs, the folks that run them
> # zfs create pool raidz d1 … d8
Surely you didn't create the zfs pool on top of SVM metadevices? If so,
that's not useful; the zfs pool should be on top of raw devices.
Also, because VxFS is extent based (if I understand correctly), not unlike how
MVS manages disk space I might add, _it ought_
> I'd love to be able to server zvols out as SCSI or FC
> targets. Are
> there any plans to add this to ZFS? That would be
> amazingly awesome.
Can one use a spare SCSI or FC controller as if it were a target?
Even if the hardware is capable, I don't see what you describe as
a ZFS thing really;
I wish there was a uniform way whereby applications could
register their ability to achieve or release consistency on demand,
and if registered, could also communicate back that they had
either achieved consistency on-disk, or were unable to do so. That
would allow backup procedures to automatical
> Intending to experiment with ZFS, I have been
> struggling with what
> should be a simple download routine.
>
> Sun Download Manager leaves a great deal to be
> desired.
>
> In the Online Help for Sun Download Manager there's a
> section on
> troubleshooting, but if it causes *anyone* this
Well, I just grabbed the latest SXCE, and just for the heck of it, fooled
around until I got the Java Web Start to work.
Basically, one's browser needs to know the following (how to do that depends
on the browser):
MIME Type: application/x-java-jnlp-file
File Extension: jnlp
Open With:
> Hello,
>
> I'm quite interested in ZFS, like everybody else I
> suppose, and am about
> to install FBSD with ZFS.
>
> On that note, i have a different first question to
> start with. I
> personally am a Linux fanboy, and would love to
> see/use ZFS on linux. I
> assume that I can use those ZFS
> Victor Engle wrote:
> > Roshan,
> >
> > As far as I know, there is no problem at all with
> using SAN storage
> > with ZFS and it does look like you were having an
> underlying problem
> > with either powerpath or the array.
>
> Correct. A write failed.
>
> > The best practices guide on opens
> Bringing this back towards ZFS-land, I think that
> there are some clever
> things we can do with snapshots and clones. But the
> age-old problem
> of arbitration rears its ugly head. I think I could
> write an option to expose
> ZFS snapshots to read-only clients. But in doing so,
> I don't
> Hello Marc,
>
> Sunday, July 29, 2007, 9:57:13 PM, you wrote:
>
> MB> MC eastlink.ca> writes:
> >>
> >> Obviously 7zip is far more CPU-intensive than
> anything in use with ZFS
> >> today. But maybe with all these processor cores
> coming down the road,
> >> a high-end compression system is
> In the old days of UFS, on occasion one might create
> multiple file systems (using multiple partitions) of
> a large LUN if filesystem corruption was a concern.
> It didn’t happen often but filesystem corruption
> has happened. So, if filesystem X was corrupt
> filesystem Y would be just fine
> New, yes. Aware - probably not.
>
> Given cheap filesystems, users would create "many"
> filesystems was an easy guess, but I somehow don't
> think anybody envisioned that users would be creating
> tens of thousands of filesystems.
>
> ZFS - too good for it's own good :-p
IMO (and given mails/
> Hello,
>
> I have just done comparison of all the above
> filesystems
> using the latest filebench. If you are interested:
> http://przemol.blogspot.com/2008/02/zfs-vs-vxfs-vs-ufs
> -on-x4500-thumper.html
>
> Regards
> przemol
I would think there'd be a lot more variation based on workload,
s
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> > "ls -l" shows the length. "ls -s" shows the size,
> which may be
> > different than the length. You probably want size
> rather than du.
>
> That is true. Unfortunately 'ls -s' displays in
> units of disk blocks
> and does not also consider t
> So, I set utf8only=on and try to create a file with a
> filename that is
> a byte array that can't be decoded to text using
> UTF-8. What's supposed
> to happen? Should fopen(), or whatever syscall
> 'touch' uses, fail?
> Should the syscall somehow escape utf8-incompatible
> bytes, or maybe
> rep
> "Dana H. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > > Are there any plans to support ZFS for write-only
> media such as
> > > optical storage? It seems that if mirroring or
> even zraid is used
> > > that ZFS would be a good basis for long term
> archival storage.
> >
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Bill McGonigle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
> >
> >> I mean, if the Linux folks to want it, fine. But
> if Sun's actually
> >> helping with such a possible effort, then it's
> just shooting itself in
> >> the f
How about SPARC - can it do zfs install+root yet, or if not, when?
Just got a couple of nice 1TB SAS drives, and I think I'd prefer to
have a mirrored pool where zfs owns the entire drives, if possible.
(I'd also eventually like to have multiple bootable zfs filesystems in
that pool, corresponding
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 05:56:44PM -0700, Richard L.
> Hamilton wrote:
> > How about SPARC - can it do zfs install+root yet,
> or if not, when?
> > Just got a couple of nice 1TB SAS drives, and I
> think I'd prefer to
> > have a mirrored pool where zfs ow
P.S. the ST31000640SS drives, together with the LSI SAS 3800x
controller (in a 64-bit 66MHz slot) gave me, using dd with
a block size of either 1024k or 16384k (1MB or 16MB) and a count
of 1024, a sustained read rate that worked out to a shade over 119MB/s,
even better than the nominal "sustained t
> Hi All,
>
> I'm new to ZFS but I'm intrigued by the possibilities
> it presents.
>
> I'm told one of the greatest benefits is that,
> instead of setting
> quotas, each user can have their own 'filesystem'
> under a single pool.
>
> This is obviously great if you've got 10 users but
> what if
> Hi list,
>
> for windows we use ghost to backup system and
> recovery.
> can we do similar thing for solaris by ZFS?
>
> I want to create a image and install to another
> machine,
> So that the personal configuration will not be lost.
Since I don't do Windows, I'm not familiar with ghost, but
> Hi list,
>
> for windows we use ghost to backup system and
> recovery.
> can we do similar thing for solaris by ZFS?
>
> I want to create a image and install to another
> machine,
> So that the personal configuration will not be lost.
Since I don't do Windows, I'm not familiar with ghost, but
>
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 15:44 +0800, Aubrey Li wrote:
> > for windows we use ghost to backup system and
> recovery.
> > can we do similar thing for solaris by ZFS?
>
> How about flar ?
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-5668/flash-24?a=v
> iew
> [ I'm actually not sure if it's supported for
> Nathan Kroenert wrote:
> > For what it's worth, I started playing with USB +
> flash + ZFS and was
> > most unhappy for quite a while.
> >
> > I was suffering with things hanging, going slow or
> just going away and
> > breaking, and thought I was witnessing something
> zfs was doing as I was
> A Darren Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 05:56:44PM -0700, Richard
> L. Hamilton wrote:
> >> How about SPARC - can it do zfs install+root yet,
> or if not, when?
> >> Just got a couple of nice 1TB SAS drives, and I
>
I don't presently have any working x86 hardware, nor do I routinely work with
x86 hardware configurations.
But it's not hard to find previous discussion on the subject:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=96790
for example...
Also, remember that SAS controllers can usually also
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 09:13:24PM -0600, Keith
> Bierman wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:58 PM 6/5/, Brad Diggs
> wrote:
> > > Hi Keith,
> > >
> > > Sure you can truncate some files but that
> effectively corrupts
> > > the files in our case and would cause more harm
> than good. The
> > > onl
If I read the man page right, you might only have to keep a minimum of two
on each side (maybe even just one on the receiving side), although I might be
tempted to keep an extra just in case; say near current, 24 hours old, and a
week old (space permitting for the larger interval of the last one).
> I encountered an issue that people using OS-X systems
> as NFS clients
> need to be aware of. While not strictly a ZFS issue,
> it may be
> encounted most often by ZFS users since ZFS makes it
> easy to support
> and export per-user filesystems. The problem I
> encountered was when
> using
[...]
> > That's not to say that there might not be other
> problems with scaling to
> > thousands of filesystems. But you're certainly not
> the first one to test it.
> >
> > For cases where a single filesystem must contain
> files owned by
> > multiple users (/var/mail being one example), old
>
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
> >
> > If I need to count useage I can use du. But if you
> can implement space
> > usage info on a per-uid basis you are not far from
> quota per uid...
>
> That sounds like quite a challenge. UIDs are just
> numbers and new
> ones can appear at an
> > btw: it's seems to me that this thread is a little
> bit OT.
>
> I don't think its OT - because SSDs make perfect
> sense as ZFS log
> and/or cache devices. If I did not make that clear
> in my OP then I
> failed to communicate clearly. In both these roles
> (log/cache)
> reliability is of t
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:33:36AM -0700, Wyllys
> Ingersoll wrote:
> > Im running build 91 with ZFS boot. It seems that
> ZFS will not allow
> > me to add an additional partition to the current
> root/boot pool
> > because it is a bootable dataset. Is this a known
> issue that will be
> > fixe
> I'm not even trying to stripe it across multiple
> disks, I just want to add another partition (from the
> same physical disk) to the root pool. Perhaps that
> is a distinction without a difference, but my goal is
> to grow my root pool, not stripe it across disks or
> enable raid features (for
Hmm...my SB2K, 2GB RAM, 2x 1050MHz UltraSPARC III Cu CPU, seems
to freeze momentarily for a couple of seconds every now and then in
a zfs root setup on snv_90, which it never did with mostly ufs on snv_81;
that despite having much faster disks now (LSI SAS 3800X and a pair of
Seagate 1TB SAS drives
Are you using
set md:mirrored_root_flag=1
in /etc/system?
See the entry for md:mirrored_root_flag on
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-2724/chapter2-156?a=view
keeping in mind all the cautions...
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-di
I wonder if one couldln't reduce (but probably not eliminate) the likelihood
of this sort of situation by setting refreservation significantly lower than
reservation?
Along those lines, I don't see any property that would restrict the number
of concurrent snapshots of a dataset :-( I think that
> Filed as 6462690.
>
> If our storage qualification test suite doesn't yet
> check for support of this bit, we might want to get
> that added; it would be useful to know (and gently
> nudge vendors who don't yet support it).
Is either the test suite, or at least a list of what it tests
(which it
Are both of you doing a umount/mount (or export/import, I guess) of the
source filesystem before both first and second test? Otherwise, there might
still be a fair bit of cached data left over from the first test, which would
give the 2nd an unfair advantage. I'm fairly sure unmounting a filesyst
> On 13/09/2006, at 2:29 AM, Eric Schrock wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 07:23:00AM -0400, Jeff A.
> Earickson wrote:
> >>
> >> Modify the dovecot IMAP server so that it can get
> zfs quota
> >> information
> >> to be able to implement the QUOTA feature of the
> IMAP protocol
> >> (RFC 2087
> What would a version FS buy us that cron+ zfs
> snapshots doesn't?
Some people are making money on the concept, so I
suppose there are those who perceive benefits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ClearCase
(I dimly remember DSEE on the Apollos; also some sort of
versioning file type on (
79 matches
Mail list logo
