On 18-Jan-09, at 11:56 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
This is not quite correct. ZFS will attempt to place the copies on
different vdevs. On the same vdev, it will try to place it somewhere
which is not contiguous (spatial diversity). I'm curiou
On 21-Jan-09, at 9:11 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>> Several people reported this same problem. They changed their
>> ethernet adaptor to an Intel ethernet interface and the performance
>> problem went away. It was not ZFS's fault.
>
> It
On 26-Jan-09, at 6:21 PM, Jakov Sosic wrote:
>>> So I wonder now, how to fix this up? Why doesn't
>> scrub overwrite bad data with good data from first
>> disk?
>>
>> ZFS doesn't know why the errors occurred, the most
>> likely scenario would be a
>> bad disk -- in which case you'd need to replac
On 26-Jan-09, at 8:15 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
>>>>>> "js" == Jakov Sosic writes:
>>>>>> "tt" == Toby Thain writes:
>
> js> Yes but that will do the complete resilvering, and I just want
> js> to fix the corrupted bl
On 29-Jan-09, at 2:17 PM, Ross wrote:
> Yeah, breaking functionality in one of the main reasons people are
> going to be trying OpenSolaris is just dumb... really, really dumb.
>
> One thing Linux, Windows, OS/X, etc all get right is that they're
> pretty easy to use right out of the box. Th
On 29-Jan-09, at 4:53 PM, Volker A. Brandt wrote:
>> Given the massive success of GNU based systems (Linux, OS X, *BSD)
>
> Ouch! Neither OSX nor *BSD are GNU-based.
I meant, extensive GNU userland (in OS X's case).
(sorry Ian)
--Toby
> They do ship with
> GNU-related things but that's been
On 4-Feb-09, at 6:19 AM, Michael McKnight wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am trying to take ZFS snapshots (ie. zfs send) and burn them to
> DVD's for offsite storage. In many cases, the snapshots greatly
> exceed the 8GB I can stuff onto a single DVD-DL.
>
> In order to make this work, I have
On 4-Feb-09, at 1:01 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
... Here are the
> problems, again, with archiving 'zfs send' output:
> ...
>EXTREMELY corruption-sensitive. 'tar' and zpool images both
>detect, report, work around, flipped bits.
I know this was discussed a while back, but in what sense does
On 4-Feb-09, at 2:29 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Toby Thain wrote:
>>> In order to make this work, I have used the "split" utility ...
>>> I use the following command to convert them back into a single file:
>>> #cat mypictures.zfs
On 9-Feb-09, at 6:17 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
>> "ok" == Orvar Korvar writes:
>
> ok> You are not using ZFS correctly.
> ok> You have misunderstood how it is used. If you dont follow the
> ok> manual (which you havent) then any filesystem will cause
> ok> problems and corrupti
On 10-Feb-09, at 1:03 PM, Charles Binford wrote:
Jeff, what do you mean by "disks that simply blow off write
ordering."?
My experience is that most enterprise disks are some flavor of
SCSI, and
host SCSI drivers almost ALWAYS use simple queue tags, implying the
target is free to re-order th
On 10-Feb-09, at 1:05 PM, Peter Schuller wrote:
YES! I recently discovered that VirtualBox apparently defaults to
ignoring flushes, which would, if true, introduce a failure mode
generally absent from real hardware (and eventually resulting in
consistency problems quite unexpected to the user w
On 10-Feb-09, at 7:41 PM, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
wellif you want a write barrier, you can issue a flush-cache and
wait for a reply before releasing writes behind the barrier. You
will
get what you want by doing this for certain.
Not if the disk drive just *ignores* barrier and flush-cach
On 10-Feb-09, at 10:36 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On February 10, 2009 4:41:35 PM -0800 Jeff Bonwick
wrote:
Not if the disk drive just *ignores* barrier and flush-cache commands
and returns success. Some consumer drives really do exactly that.
ouch.
If it were possible to detect such disks
On 11-Feb-09, at 10:08 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Tue, February 10, 2009 23:43, Uwe Dippel wrote:
1. Can the relevant people confirm that drives might turn dead when
leaving a pool at unfortunate moments? Despite of complete physical
integrity? [I'd really appreciate an answer here, bec
On 11-Feb-09, at 11:19 AM, Tim wrote:
...
And yes, I do keep checksums of all the data sitting on them and
periodically check it. So, for all of your ranting and raving, the
fact remains even a *crappy* filesystem like fat32 manages to
handle a hot unplug without any prior notice without
On 11-Feb-09, at 5:52 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Wed, February 11, 2009 15:52, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Tim wrote:
Right, except the OP stated he unmounted the filesystem in
question, and
it
was the *ONLY* one on the drive, meaning there is absolutely 0
chance o
On 11-Feb-09, at 7:16 PM, Uwe Dippel wrote:
I need to disappoint you here, LED inactive for a few seconds is a
very bad indicator of pending writes. Used to experience this on a
stick on Ubuntu, which was silent until the 'umount' and then it
started to write for some 10 seconds.
On the
On 11-Feb-09, at 9:30 PM, Uwe Dippel wrote:
Toby,
sad that you fall for the last resort of the marketing droids here.
All manufactures (and there are only a few left) will sue the hell
out of you if you state that their drives don't 'sync'. And each
and every drive I have ever used did.
On 12-Feb-09, at 3:02 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:
On Thu, February 12, 2009 10:10, Ross wrote:
> Of course, that does assume that devices are being truthful when
they say
> that data has been committed, but a little data loss from badly
On 12-Feb-09, at 7:02 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12 at 21:45, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
A read of data in the disk cache will be read from the disk cache.
You
can't tell the disk to ignore its cache and read directly from the
plater.
The only way to test this is to write and the re
On 14-Feb-09, at 2:40 AM, Andras Spitzer wrote:
Damon,
Yes, we can provide simple concat inside the array (even though
today we provide RAID5 or RAID1 as our standard, and using Veritas
with concat), the question is more of if it's worth it to switch
the redundancy from the array to the
On 17-Feb-09, at 3:01 PM, Scott Lawson wrote:
Hi All,
...
I have seen other people discussing power availability on other
threads
recently. If you
want it, you can have it. You just need the business case for it. I
don't buy the comments
on UPS unreliability.
Hi,
I remarked on it. FWIW, m
On 17-Feb-09, at 8:28 PM, Asif Iqbal wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Robert Milkowski
wrote:
Hello Asif,
Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 7:43:41 PM, you wrote:
AI> Hi All
AI> Does anyone have any experience on running qmail on solaris 10
with ZFS only?
AI> I would appreciate if yo
On 17-Feb-09, at 9:35 PM, Scott Lawson wrote:
Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Feb-09, at 3:01 PM, Scott Lawson wrote:
Hi All,
...
I have seen other people discussing power availability on other
threads
recently. If you
want it, you can have it. You just need the business case for it. I
don&#
On 24-Feb-09, at 1:37 PM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
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
On 25-Feb-09, at 9:53 AM, Moore, Joe wrote:
Miles Nordin wrote:
that SQLite2 should be equally as tolerant of snapshot backups
as it
is of cord-yanking.
The special backup features of databases including ``performing a
checkpoint'' or whatever, are for systems incapable of snapshots,
wh
On 25-Feb-09, at 1:08 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
"jm" == Moore, Joe writes:
jm> This is correct. The general term for these sorts of
jm> point-in-time backups is "crash consistant".
phew, thanks, glad I wasn't talking out my ass again.
jm> In-flight transactions (ones that have n
On 4-Mar-09, at 2:07 AM, Stephen Nelson-Smith wrote:
Hi,
I recommended a ZFS-based archive solution to a client needing to have
a network-based archive of 15TB of data in a remote datacentre. I
based this on an X2200 + J4400, Solaris 10 + rsync.
This was enthusiastically received, to the ext
On 4-Mar-09, at 1:28 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
I don't know if anyone has noticed that the topic is "google summer
of code". There is only so much that a starving college student
can accomplish from a dead-start in 1-1/2 months. The ZFS
equivalent of eliminating world hunger is not amon
On 4-Mar-09, at 7:35 PM, Gary Mills wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 01:20:42PM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
"gm" == Gary Mills writes:
gm> I suppose my RFE for two-level ZFS should be included,
Not that my opinion counts for much, but I wasn't deaf to it---I did
respond.
I appreciate th
On 5-Mar-09, at 2:03 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
"gm" == Gary Mills writes:
gm> There are many different components that could contribute to
gm> such errors.
yes of course.
gm> Since only the lower ZFS has data redundancy, only it can
gm> correct the error.
um, no?
...
For wri
On 14-Mar-09, at 12:09 PM, Blake wrote:
I just thought of an enhancement to zfs that would be very helpful in
disaster recovery situations - having zfs cache device serial/model
numbers - the information we see in cfgadm -v.
+1 I haven't needed this but it sounds very sensible. I can imagine
On 17-Mar-09, at 3:32 PM, cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote:
Neal,
You'll need to use the text-based initial install option.
The steps for configuring a ZFS root pool during an initial
install are covered here:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/
Page 114:
Example 4–1 Initial Install
On 10-Apr-09, at 2:03 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
David Magda writes:
On Apr 7, 2009, at 16:43, OpenSolaris Forums wrote:
if you have a snapshot of your files and rsync the same files again,
you need to use "--inplace" rsync option , otherwise completely new
blocks will be allocated for the ne
On 10-Apr-09, at 5:05 PM, Mark J Musante wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Patrick Skerrett wrote:
degradation) when these write bursts come in, and if I could
buffer them even for 60 seconds, it would make everything much
smoother.
ZFS already batches up writes into a transaction group, which
On 15-Apr-09, at 8:31 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 04/15/09 14:30, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
zpool status shows errors after a pkg image-update
followed by a scrub.
If a corruption occured in the main memory, the backplane, or the
disk
controller
On 16-Apr-09, at 5:27 PM, Florian Ermisch wrote:
Uwe Dippel schrieb:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Since it was not reported that user data was impacted, it seems
likely that there was a read failure (or bad checksum) for ZFS
metadata which is redundantly stored.
(Maybe I am too much of a lingu
On 17-Apr-09, at 11:49 AM, Frank Middleton wrote:
... One might argue that a machine this flaky should
be retired, but it is actually working quite well,
If it has bad memory, you won't get much useful work done on it until
the memory is replaced - unless you want to risk your data with
r
On 19-Apr-09, at 10:38 AM, Uwe Dippel wrote:
casper@sun.com wrote:
We are back at square one; or, at the subject line.
I did a zpool status -v, everything was hunky dory.
Next, a power failure, 2 hours later, and this is what zpool
status -v thinks:
zpool status -v
pool: rpool
state:
On 22-May-09, at 5:24 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
There have been a number of threads here on the reliability of ZFS
in the
face of flaky hardware. ZFS certainly runs well on decent (e.g.,
SPARC)
hardware, but isn't it reasonable to expect it to run well on
something
less well engineered?
On 26-May-09, at 10:21 AM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 05/26/09 03:23, casper@sun.com wrote:
And where exactly do you get the second good copy of the data?
From the first. And if it is already bad, as noted previously, this
is no worse than the UFS/ext3 case. If you want total freedom fro
On 25-May-09, at 11:16 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 05/22/09 21:08, Toby Thain wrote:
Yes, the important thing is to *detect* them, no system can run
reliably
with bad memory, and that includes any system with ZFS. Doing nutty
things like calculating the checksum twice does not buy
On 10-Jun-09, at 7:25 PM, Alex Lam S.L. wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Blew
wrote:
That's quite a blanket statement. MANY companies (including Oracle)
purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of
their
price point and capabilities. You easily could buy
On 16-Jun-09, at 6:22 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 03:16:09PM -0700, milosz wrote:
yeah i pretty much agree with you on this. the fact that no one has
brought this up before is a pretty good indication of the demand.
there are about 1000 things i'd rather see fixed/improv
On 17-Jun-09, at 7:37 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
Ok, so you mean the comments are mostly FUD and bull shit? Because
there are no bug reports from the whiners? Could this be the case?
It is mostly FUD? Hmmm...?
Having read the thread, I would say "without a doubt".
Slashdot was never the pl
On 17-Jun-09, at 5:42 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
"bmm" == Bogdan M Maryniuk writes:
"tt" == Toby Thain writes:
"ok" == Orvar Korvar writes:
tt> Slashdot was never the place to go for accurate information
tt> about ZFS.
again, the posts in t
On 18-Jun-09, at 12:14 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
"bmm" == Bogdan M Maryniuk writes:
"tt" == Toby Thain writes:
...
tt> /. is no person...
... you and I both know it's plausible
speculation that Apple delayed unleashing ZFS on their consumers
because of
On 23-Jun-09, at 1:58 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
Erik Trimble wrote:
All this discussion hasn't answered one thing for me: exactly
_how_ does ZFS do resilvering? Both in the case of mirrors, and
of RAIDZ[2] ?
I've seen some mention that it goes in cronological order
On 14-Jul-09, at 5:18 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
With dedup, will it be possible somehow to identify files that are
identical but has different names? Then I can find and remove all
duplicates. I know that with dedup, removal is not really needed
because the duplicate will just be a reference
On 19-Jul-09, at 7:12 AM, Russel wrote:
Guys guys please chill...
First thanks to the info about virtualbox option to bypass the
cache (I don't suppose you can give me a reference for that info?
(I'll search the VB site :-))
I posted about that insane default, six months ago. Obviously ZFS
On 20-Jul-09, at 6:26 AM, Russel wrote:
Well I did have a UPS on the machine :-)
but the machine hung and I had to power it off...
(yep it was vertual, but that happens on direct HW too,
As has been discussed here before, the failure modes are different as
the layer stack from filesystem t
On 24-Jul-09, at 6:41 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 07/24/09 04:35 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Regardless, it [VirtualBox] has committed a crime.
But ZFS is a journalled file system! Any hardware can lose a flush;
No, the problematic default in VirtualBox is flushes being *ignored*,
whic
On 25-Jul-09, at 3:32 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 07/25/09 02:50 PM, David Magda wrote:
Yes, it can be affected. If the snapshot's data structure / record is
underneath the corrupted data in the tree then it won't be able to be
reached.
Can you comment on if/how mirroring or raidz mitigat
with metatdata other
than to manage it.
Now if you were too lazy to bother to follow the instructions
properly,
we could end up with bizarre things. This is what happens when
storage
lies and re-orders writes across boundaries.
On 07/25/09 07:34 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
The problem is assumed
On 27-Jul-09, at 5:46 AM, erik.ableson wrote:
The zfs send command generates a differential file between the two
selected snapshots so you can send that to anything you'd like.
The catch of course is that then you have a collection of files on
your Linux box that are pretty much useless s
On 27-Jul-09, at 3:44 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 07/27/09 01:27 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
Everyone on this list seems to blame lying hardware for ignoring
commands, but disks are relatively mature and I can't believe that
major OEMs would qualify disks or other hardware that willingly
ig
On 31-Jul-09, at 7:15 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
wow, talk about a knee jerk reaction...
On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote:
I don't mean to be offensive Russel, but if you do
ever return to ZFS, please promise me that you will
never, ever, EVER run it virtualized on top of NTFS
(
On 4-Aug-09, at 9:28 AM, Roch Bourbonnais wrote:
Le 26 juil. 09 à 01:34, Toby Thain a écrit :
On 25-Jul-09, at 3:32 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 07/25/09 02:50 PM, David Magda wrote:
Yes, it can be affected. If the snapshot's data structure /
record is
underneath the corrupted
On 14-Aug-09, at 11:14 AM, Peter Schow wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 05:02:46PM -0600, Louis-Fr?d?ric Feuillette
wrote:
I saw this question on another mailing list, and I too would like to
know. And I have a couple questions of my own.
== Paraphrased from other list ==
Does anyone have any
On 25-Sep-09, at 2:58 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 09/25/09 11:08 AM, Travis Tabbal wrote:
... haven't heard if it's a known
bug or if it will be fixed in the next version...
Out of courtesy to our host, Sun makes some quite competitive
X86 hardware. I have absolutely no idea how difficult
On 26-Sep-09, at 9:56 AM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 09/25/09 09:58 PM, David Magda wrote:
...
Similar definition for [/tmp] Linux FWIW:
Yes, but unless they fixed it recently (>=RHFC11), Linux doesn't
actually
nuke /tmp, which seems to be mapped to disk. One side effect is
that (like
M
On 23-Jan-07, at 4:51 PM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
yes I am an experienced Solaris admin and know all about devfsadm :-)
and the older disks command.
It doesn't help in this case. I think it's a BIOS thing. Linux and
Windows can't see IDE drives that aren't there at boot tim
On 25-Jan-07, at 5:09 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 23, 2007 8:11:24 PM -0200 Toby Thain
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Still, would be nice for those of us who bought them. And judging by
other posts on this thread it seems just about everyone assumes
hotswap
"just works&qu
On 25-Jan-07, at 3:56 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Tim,
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 4:44:34 PM, you wrote:
TC> I guess I should clarify what I'm doing.
TC> Essentially I'd like to have the / and swap on the first 60GB of
TC> the disk. Then use the remaining 100GB as a zfs partition to
On 26-Jan-07, at 7:29 PM, Selim Daoud wrote:
it would be good to have real data and not only guess ot anecdots
this story about wrong blocks being written by RAID controllers
sounds like the anti-terrorism propaganda we are leaving in: exagerate
the facts to catch everyone's attention
.It's g
Oh - and the accounting folks love it when you tell them there's no
ongoing cost of ownership - because Joe Screwdriver can swap out a
failed
Seagate 500Gb SATA drive after he picks up a replacement from Frys
on his
lunch break!
Why do people think this will work? I never could figure it o
On 26-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
Hi.
What do you guys think about implementing 'zfs/zpool rewrite' command?
It'll read every block older than the date when the command was
executed
and write it again (using standard ZFS COW mechanism, simlar to how
resilvering works, bu
On 27-Jan-07, at 4:57 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 27, 2007 12:27:17 AM -0200 Toby Thain
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 26-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
3. I created file system with huge amount of data, where most of the
data is read-only. I change my serve
On 27-Jan-07, at 10:15 PM, Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
We had in flight data corruption that EMC faithfully wrote just
like NetApp would in your case. Everybody is assuming that
corruption or data loss occurs only on disks, it can happen
everywhere. In a datacenter SAN you've so many more pa
On 27-Jan-07, at 10:15 PM, Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
... ZFS will not stop alpha particle induced memory corruption
after data has been received by server and verified to be correct.
Sadly I've been hit with that as well.
My brother points out that you can use a rad hardened CPU. ECC shou
On 28-Jan-07, at 7:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27-Jan-07, at 10:15 PM, Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
... ZFS will not stop alpha particle induced memory corruption
after data has been received by server and verified to be correct.
Sadly I've been hit with that as well.
My brother poi
Hi,
This is not exactly ZFS specific, but this still seems like a
fruitful place to ask.
It occurred to me today that hot spares could sit in standby (spun
down) until needed (I know ATA can do this, I'm supposing SCSI does
too, but I haven't looked at a spec recently). Does anybody do th
On 29-Jan-07, at 9:04 PM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Hi,
This is not exactly ZFS specific, but this still seems like a
fruitful place to ask.
It occurred to me today that hot spares could sit in standby (spun
down) until needed (I know ATA can do this, I&#
ldn't happen to a spare drive that was
spun up from time to time. In fact this problem would be (mitigated
and/or) caught by the periodic health check I suggested.
--T
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1941205,00.asp
Would that apply here?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/29/07, Toby Tha
On 30-Jan-07, at 5:48 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
...
One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization
not
needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For
example,
in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1 on
device 2. In ZFS, thi
On 12-Feb-07, at 5:55 PM, Frank Hofmann wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Peter Schuller wrote:
Hello,
Often fsync() is used not because one cares that some piece of
data is on
stable storage, but because one wants to ensure the subsequent I/O
operations
are performed after previous I/O operat
On 26-Feb-07, at 11:32 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Rayson Ho wrote:
NT kernel has the filter driver framework:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/filterdrv/default.mspx
It seems to be useful for things like FS encrytion and compression...
is there any plan to implement something similar in Sol
On 28-Feb-07, at 6:43 PM, Erblichs wrote:
ZFS Group,
My two cents..
Currently, in my experience, it is a waste of time to try to
guarantee "exact" location of disk blocks with any FS.
? Sounds like you're confusing logical location with physical
location, througho
On 11-Mar-07, at 11:12 PM, Ayaz Anjum wrote:
HI !
Well as per my actual post, i created a zfs file as part of Sun
cluster HAStoragePlus, and then disconned the FC cable, since there
was no active IO hence the failure of disk was not detected, then i
touched a file in the zfs filesystem,
On 11-Mar-07, at 11:22 PM, Stuart Low wrote:
Heya,
I believe Robert and Darren have offered sufficient explanations: You
cannot be assured of committed data unless you've sync'd it. You are
only risking data loss if your users and/or applications assume data
is committed without seeing a comp
On 12-Mar-07, at 11:28 AM, Malachi de AElfweald wrote:
ZFS supports swap to /dev/vzol, however, I do not
have data related to
performance.
Also note that ZFS does not support dump yet, see RFE
5008936.
I am getting ready to install a new server from scratch. While I
had been hoping to do a
On 12-Mar-07, at 2:37 PM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi Brian,
To my understanding the X2100 M2 and X2200 M2 are basically the same
board OEM'd from Quanta...except the 2200 M2 has two sockets.
As to ZFS and their weirdness, it would seem to me that fixing it
would be mo
On 29-Mar-07, at 5:43 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Atul Vidwansa wrote:
Hi Richard,
I am not talking about source(ASCII) files. How about versioning
production data? I talked about file level snapshots because
snapshotting entire filesystem does not make sense when
application is
changing j
On 9-Apr-07, at 8:15 AM, Atul Vidwansa wrote:
Hi,
I have few questions about the way a transaction group is created.
1. Is it possible to group transactions related to multiple operations
in same group? For example, an "rmdir foo" followed by "mkdir bar",
can these end up in same transactio
On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:
Rich Teer writes:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing th
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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,
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
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?
Read w
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:34 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ignatich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux.
I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to
p
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
...
Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that
BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don't
want to give others the same benefit.
That's a pointless remark. Why?
BSD licensors choose that licens
On 12-Apr-07, at 3:40 PM, Sean Liu wrote:
In good'ol days if you are moving file/files in the same UFS, it's
a snap as the moving is only a change in dir/inode level.
Since zfs encourages creating more filesystems instead of dirs,
moving can be an issue - data must be moved around instead
On 12-Apr-07, at 7:42 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On April 12, 2007 7:10:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 3:40 PM, Sean Liu wrote:
In good'ol days if you are moving file/files in the same UFS, it's
a snap as the moving is only a change in
On 12-Apr-07, at 7:21 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their
choice
of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature
of the
GPL,
Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:49 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:51:06PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that
the GPL
would make such a port a deri
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:31 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> ...
>
> Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact
that
> BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY
to MY code
as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has
On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact
On 13-Apr-07, at 4:22 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of
Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL
applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications t
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:39 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one
that spurred
the creation of the GPL,
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:43 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 13-Apr-07, at 4:22 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of
Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL
applies O
101 - 200 of 295 matches
Mail list logo
