Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs hot spare not automatically getting used
Jim, That is good news !! Let's us know how it goes. Regards, Sanjeev. PS : I am out of office a couple of days. Jim Hranicky wrote: OK, spun down the drives again. Here's that output: http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jfh/zfs/threads I just realized that I changed the configuration, so that doesn't reflect a system with spares, sorry. However, I reinitialized the pool and spun down one of the drives and everything is working as it should: pool: zmir state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-D3 scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Wed Nov 29 16:29:53 2006 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM zmir DEGRADED 0 0 0 mirror DEGRADED 0 0 0 c0t0d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spare DEGRADED 0 0 0 c3t1d0 UNAVAIL 10 28.88 0 cannot open c3t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c3t3d0 INUSE currently in use c3t4d0 AVAIL errors: No known data errors I'm just not sure if it will always work. I'll try a few different configs and see what happens. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Solaris Revenue Products Engineering, India Engineering Center, Sun Microsystems India Pvt Ltd. Tel:x27521 +91 80 669 27521 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Convert Zpool RAID Types
Hi Richard, Been watching the stats on the array and the cache hits are < 3% on these volumes. We're very write heavy, and rarely write similar enough data twice. Having random oriented database data and sequential-oriented database log data on the same volume groups, it seems to me this was causing a lot of head repositioning. By shutting down the slaves database servers we cut the latency tremendously, which would seem to me to indicate a lot of contention. But I'm trying to come up to speed on this, so I may be wrong. "iostat -xtcnz 5" showed the latency dropped from 200 to 20 once we cut the replication. Since the masters and slaves were using the same the volume groups and RAID-Z was striping across all of them on both the masters and slaves, I think this was a big problem. Any comments? Best Regards, Jason On 11/29/06, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason J. W. Williams wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Originally, my thinking was I'd like drop one member out of a 3 member > RAID-Z and turn it into a RAID-1 zpool. You would need to destroy the pool to do this -- requiring the data to be copied twice. > Although, at the moment I'm not sure. So many options, so little time... :-) > Currently, I have 3 volume groups in my array with 4 disk each (total > 12 disks). These VGs are sliced into 3 volumes each. I then have two > database servers using one LUN from each of the 3 VGs RAID-Z'd > together. For redundancy its great, for performance its pretty bad. > > One of the major issues is the disk seek contention between the > servers since they're all using the same disks, and RAID-Z tries to > utilize all the devices it has access to on every write. This is difficult to pin down. The disks cache and the RAID controller caches. So it is true that you would have contention, it is difficult to predict what affect, if any, the hosts would see. > What I thought I'd move to was 6 RAID-1 VGs on the array, and assign > the VGs to each server via a 1 device striped zpool. However, given > the fact that ZFS will kernel panic in the event of bad data I'm > reconsidering how to lay it out. NB. all other file systems will similarly panic. We get spoiled to some extent because there are errors where ZFS won't panic. In the future, there will be more errors that ZFS can handle without panic. > Essentially I've got 12 disks to work with. > > Anyway, long form of trying to convert from RAID-Z to RAID-1. Any help > is much appreciated. send/receive = copy/copy = backup/restore It may be possible to do this as a rolling reconfiguration. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: zfs hot spare not automatically getting used
> > OK, spun down the drives again. Here's that output: > > http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jfh/zfs/threads I just realized that I changed the configuration, so that doesn't reflect a system with spares, sorry. However, I reinitialized the pool and spun down one of the drives and everything is working as it should: pool: zmir state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-D3 scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Wed Nov 29 16:29:53 2006 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM zmir DEGRADED 0 0 0 mirror DEGRADED 0 0 0 c0t0d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spare DEGRADED 0 0 0 c3t1d0 UNAVAIL 10 28.88 0 cannot open c3t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c3t3d0 INUSE currently in use c3t4d0 AVAIL errors: No known data errors I'm just not sure if it will always work. I'll try a few different configs and see what happens. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: zfs hot spare not automatically getting used
I know this isn't necessarily ZFS specific, but after I reboot I spin the drives back up, but nothing I do (devfsadm, disks, etc) can get them seen again until the next reboot. I've got some older scsi drives in an old Andataco Gigaraid enclosure which I thought supported hot-swap, but I seem unable to hot swap them in. The PC has an adaptec 39160 card in it and I'm running Nevada b51. Is this not a setup that can support hot swap? Or is there something I have to do other than devfsadm to get the scsi bus rescanned? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: zfs hot spare not automatically getting used
> >>Do you have a threadlist from the node when it was > hung ? That would > >>reveal some info. > > > >Unfortunately I don't. Do you mean the output of > > > > ::threadlist -v > > > Yes. That would be useful. OK, spun down the drives again. Here's that output: http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jfh/zfs/threads here's the output after boot: http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jfh/zfs/threads-after-boot > Also, check the zpool > status output. This hangs and is unkillable. The node also has to be powercycled as it hangs on a reboot. Until the boot it seems to work ok, though it spits out a ton of SCSI errors. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: system wont boot after zfs
David Elefante wrote: I had this happen on three different motherboards. So it seems that there should be a procedure in the documentation that states if your BIOS doesn't support EFI labels than you need to write ZFS to a partition (slice) not the overlay, causing the BIOS to hang on reading the drive on boot up. Most PC bios do not support EFI at this point, so this can impact the larger community. Having that documentation would have saved me 30 hours at least, and I only hope that you take this as positive feedback and integrate it into the doc set. I have ZFS working on my Ultra 20 just fine, and that is what confused me when I was working with my x86 box. It says that EFI is not supported on IDE disks (SATA drive), but I'm assuming that this has changed. From the sol9 doc set: You shouldn't be using the Solaris *9* doc set. Use the Solaris 10 docs, specifically: Solaris 10 System Administrator Collection >> System Administration Guide: Devices and File Systems >> 11. Managing Disks (Overview) >> What's New in Disk Management in the Solaris 10 Release? http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-5093 and Solaris 10 System Administrator Collection >> Solaris ZFS Administration Guide >> 4. Managing ZFS Storage Pools >> Components of a ZFS Storage Pool http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461 Also, please pester your mobo vendor to get with the times... :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: system wont boot after zfs
>I suspect a lack of an MBR could cause some BIOS implementations to >barf .. Why? Zeroed disks don't have that issue either. What appears to be happening is more that raid controllers attempt to interpret the data in the EFI label as the proprietary "hardware raid" labels. At least, it seems to be a problem with internal RAIDs only. In my experience, removing the disks from the boot sequence was not enough; you need to disable the disks in the BIOS. The SCSI disks with EFI labels in the same system caused no issues at all; but the disks connected to the on-board RAID did have issues. So what you need to do is: - remove the controllers from the probe sequence - disable the disks Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: system wont boot after zfs
On Nov 29, 2006, at 10:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a problem since how can anyone use ZFS on a PC??? My motherboard is a newly minted AM2 w/ all the latest firmware. I disabled boot detection on the sata channels and it still refuses to boot. I had to purchase an external SATA enclosure to fix the drives. This seems to me to be a serious problem. I put build 47 and 50 on there with the same issue. A serious problem *IN YOUR BIOS*. You will need to format the disks, at ordinary PC (fdisk) labels and on those create Solaris partitions and give those to ZFS. take a look at the EFI/GPT discussion here (apple): http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/7CC25766-EF64-4D85-AD37- BCC39FBD2A4F.html I suspect a lack of an MBR could cause some BIOS implementations to barf .. does our fdisk put an MBR on the disk? if so, does the EFI vdev labeling invalidate the MBR? Jonathan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Convert Zpool RAID Types
Jason J. W. Williams wrote: Hi Richard, Originally, my thinking was I'd like drop one member out of a 3 member RAID-Z and turn it into a RAID-1 zpool. You would need to destroy the pool to do this -- requiring the data to be copied twice. Although, at the moment I'm not sure. So many options, so little time... :-) Currently, I have 3 volume groups in my array with 4 disk each (total 12 disks). These VGs are sliced into 3 volumes each. I then have two database servers using one LUN from each of the 3 VGs RAID-Z'd together. For redundancy its great, for performance its pretty bad. One of the major issues is the disk seek contention between the servers since they're all using the same disks, and RAID-Z tries to utilize all the devices it has access to on every write. This is difficult to pin down. The disks cache and the RAID controller caches. So it is true that you would have contention, it is difficult to predict what affect, if any, the hosts would see. What I thought I'd move to was 6 RAID-1 VGs on the array, and assign the VGs to each server via a 1 device striped zpool. However, given the fact that ZFS will kernel panic in the event of bad data I'm reconsidering how to lay it out. NB. all other file systems will similarly panic. We get spoiled to some extent because there are errors where ZFS won't panic. In the future, there will be more errors that ZFS can handle without panic. Essentially I've got 12 disks to work with. Anyway, long form of trying to convert from RAID-Z to RAID-1. Any help is much appreciated. send/receive = copy/copy = backup/restore It may be possible to do this as a rolling reconfiguration. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: system wont boot after zfs
I had this happen on three different motherboards. So it seems that there should be a procedure in the documentation that states if your BIOS doesn't support EFI labels than you need to write ZFS to a partition (slice) not the overlay, causing the BIOS to hang on reading the drive on boot up. Most PC bios do not support EFI at this point, so this can impact the larger community. Having that documentation would have saved me 30 hours at least, and I only hope that you take this as positive feedback and integrate it into the doc set. I have ZFS working on my Ultra 20 just fine, and that is what confused me when I was working with my x86 box. It says that EFI is not supported on IDE disks (SATA drive), but I'm assuming that this has changed. >From the sol9 doc set: Restrictions of the EFI Disk Label Keep the following restrictions in mind when determining whether to use disks greater than 1 terabyte is appropriate for your environment: * The SCSI driver, ssd, currently only supports up to 2 terabytes. If you need greater disk capacity than 2 terabytes, use a volume management product like Solaris Volume Manager to create a larger device. * Layered software products intended for systems with EFI-labeled disks might be incapable of accessing a disk with an EFI disk label. * A disk with an EFI disk label is not recognized on systems running previous Solaris releases. * The EFI disk label is not supported on IDE disks. * You cannot boot from a disk with an EFI disk label. * You cannot use the Solaris Management Console's Disk Manager Tool to manage disks with EFI labels. Use the format utility or the Solaris Management Console's Enhanced Storage Tool to manage disks with EFI labels, after you use the format utility to partition the disk. * The EFI specification prohibits overlapping slices. The whole disk is represented by cxtydz. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 'legacy' vs 'none'
On 29/11/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 28/11/06, Terence Patrick Donoghue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a difference - Yep, > > 'legacy' tells ZFS to refer to the /etc/vfstab file for FS mounts and > options > whereas > 'none' tells ZFS not to mount the ZFS filesystem at all. Then you would > need to manually mount the ZFS using 'zfs set mountpoint=/mountpoint > poolname/fsname' to get it mounted. Thanks Terence - now you've explained it, re-reading the manpage makes more sense :) This is plain wrong though: " Zones A ZFS file system can be added to a non-global zone by using zonecfg's "add fs" subcommand. A ZFS file system that is added to a non-global zone must have its mountpoint property set to legacy." It has to be 'none' or it can't be delegated. Could someone change that? I've had one last go at understanding what the hell is going on, and what's *really* being complained about is the fact that the mountpoint attribute is inherited (regardless of whether the value is 'none' or 'legacy'). Explicitly setting the mountpoint lets the zone boot. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Production ZFS Server Death (06/06)
Hi Betsy, Yes, part of this is a documentation problem. I recently documented the find -inum scenario in the community version of the admin guide. Please see page 156, (well, for next time) here: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/ We're working on the larger issue as well. Cindy Elizabeth Schwartz wrote: Well, I fixed the HW but I had one bad file, and the problem was that ZFS was saying "delete the pool and restore from tape" when, it turns out, the answer is just find the file with the bad inode, delete it, clear the device and scrub. Maybe more of a documentation problme, but it sure is disconcerting to have a file system threatening to give up the game over one bad file (and the real irony: it was a file in someone's TRASH!) Anyway I'm back in business without a restore (and with a rebuilt RAID) but yeesh, it sure took a lot of escalating to get to the point where someone knew to tell me to do a find -inum. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: system wont boot after zfs
>This is a problem since how can anyone use ZFS on a PC??? My motherboard is a >newly minted AM2 w/ all the latest firmware. I disabled boot detection on the sata channels and it still refuses to b oot. I had to purchase an external SATA enclosure to fix the drives. This seems to me to be a ser ious problem. I put build 47 and 50 on there with the same issue. A serious problem *IN YOUR BIOS*. You will need to format the disks, at ordinary PC (fdisk) labels and on those create Solaris partitions and give those to ZFS. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: system wont boot after zfs
On 11/30/06, David Elefante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I had the same thing happen to me twice on my x86 box. I installed ZFS (RaidZ) on my enclosure with four drives and upon reboot the bios hangs upon detection of the newly EFI'd drives. I've already RMA'd 4 drives to seagate and the new batch was frozen as well. I was suspecting my enclosure, but I was suspicious when it only went bye bye after installing ZFS. This is a problem since how can anyone use ZFS on a PC??? My motherboard is a newly minted AM2 w/ all the latest firmware. I disabled boot detection on the sata channels and it still refuses to boot. I had to purchase an external SATA enclosure to fix the drives. This seems to me to be a serious problem. I put build 47 and 50 on there with the same issue. Yes, this is a serious problem. It's a problem with your motherboard bios, which is clearly not up to date. The Sun Ultra-20 bios was updated with a fix for this issue back in May. Until you have updated your bios, you will need to destroy the EFI labels, write SMI labels to the disks, and create slices on those disks which are the size that you want to devote to ZFS. Then you can specify the slice name when you run your zpool create operation. This has been covered in the ZFS discussion lists several times, and a quick google search should have found the answer for you. James C. McPherson -- Solaris kernel software engineer, system admin and troubleshooter http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog Find me on LinkedIn @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamescmcpherson ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: system wont boot after zfs
On 29-Nov-06, at 9:30 AM, David Elefante wrote: I had the same thing happen to me twice on my x86 box. I installed ZFS (RaidZ) on my enclosure with four drives and upon reboot the bios hangs upon detection of the newly EFI'd drives. ... This seems to me to be a serious problem. Indeed. Yay for PC BIOS. --Toby ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs corrupted my data!
On 29-Nov-06, at 8:53 AM, Brian Hechinger wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:48:46PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote: Her original configuration wasn't redundant, so she should expect this kind of manual recovery from time to time. Seems a logical conclusion to me? Or is this one of those once-in-a-lifetime strikes? That's not an entirely true statement. Her configuration is redundant from a traditional disk subsystem point of view. I think the problem here is that the old disk subsystem mindsets no longer apply with the way something like ZFS works. That is very true from what I've seen. ZFS definitely has a problem cracking the old-think, but then any generational shift does, historically! (I won't bore with other examples.) This is going to be the largest stumbling block of all of them I believe, not anything technical. If I had the money and time, I'd build a hardware RAID controller that could do ZFS natively. We already have one: Thumper. :) But in terms of replacing the traditional RAID subsystem: I don't see how such a design could address faults between the isolated controller and the host (in the way that software ZFS does). Am I missing something in your idea? The "old" think is that it is sufficient to have a very complex and expensive RAID controller which claims to be reliable storage. But of course it's not: No matter how excellent your subsystem is, it's still isolated by unreliable components (and non-checksummed RAID is inherently at risk anyway). --Toby It would be dead simple (*I* think anyway) to make it transparent to the ZFS layer. ;) -brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: system wont boot after zfs
I had the same thing happen to me twice on my x86 box. I installed ZFS (RaidZ) on my enclosure with four drives and upon reboot the bios hangs upon detection of the newly EFI'd drives. I've already RMA'd 4 drives to seagate and the new batch was frozen as well. I was suspecting my enclosure, but I was suspicious when it only went bye bye after installing ZFS. This is a problem since how can anyone use ZFS on a PC??? My motherboard is a newly minted AM2 w/ all the latest firmware. I disabled boot detection on the sata channels and it still refuses to boot. I had to purchase an external SATA enclosure to fix the drives. This seems to me to be a serious problem. I put build 47 and 50 on there with the same issue. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs corrupted my data!
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:48:46PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote: > > Her original configuration wasn't redundant, so she should expect > this kind of manual recovery from time to time. Seems a logical > conclusion to me? Or is this one of those once-in-a-lifetime strikes? That's not an entirely true statement. Her configuration is redundant from a traditional disk subsystem point of view. I think the problem here is that the old disk subsystem mindsets no longer apply with the way something like ZFS works. This is going to be the largest stumbling block of all of them I believe, not anything technical. If I had the money and time, I'd build a hardware RAID controller that could do ZFS natively. It would be dead simple (*I* think anyway) to make it transparent to the ZFS layer. ;) -brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: 'legacy' vs 'none'
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 10:25:18AM +, Ceri Davies wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:48:19PM +, Dick Davies wrote: > > Just spotted one - is this intentional? > > > > You can't delegate a dataset to a zone if mountpoint=legacy. > > Changing it to 'none' works fine. > > > > > > vera / # zfs create tank/delegated > > vera / # zfs get mountpoint tank/delegated > > NAMEPROPERTYVALUE SOURCE > > tank/delegated mountpoint legacy inherited from tank > > vera / # zfs create tank/delegated/ganesh > > vera / # zfs get mountpoint tank/delegated/ganesh > > NAME PROPERTYVALUE SOURCE > > tank/delegated/ganesh mountpoint legacy inherited from > > tank > > vera / # zonecfg -z ganesh > > zonecfg:ganesh> add dataset > > zonecfg:ganesh:dataset> set name=tank/delegated/ganesh > > zonecfg:ganesh:dataset> end > > zonecfg:ganesh> commit > > zonecfg:ganesh> exit > > vera / # zoneadm -z ganesh boot > > could not verify zfs dataset tank/delegated/ganesh: mountpoint cannot be > > inherited > > zoneadm: zone ganesh failed to verify > > vera / # zfs set mountpoint=none tank/delegated/ganesh > > vera / # zoneadm -z ganesh boot > > vera / # > > Does it actually boot then? Eric is saying that the filesystem cannot > be mounted in the 'none' case, so presumably it doesn't. Not to worry, I see what you're doing now. Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere pgpBKHDiFmMYt.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: 'legacy' vs 'none'
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:48:19PM +, Dick Davies wrote: > Just spotted one - is this intentional? > > You can't delegate a dataset to a zone if mountpoint=legacy. > Changing it to 'none' works fine. > > > vera / # zfs create tank/delegated > vera / # zfs get mountpoint tank/delegated > NAMEPROPERTYVALUE SOURCE > tank/delegated mountpoint legacy inherited from tank > vera / # zfs create tank/delegated/ganesh > vera / # zfs get mountpoint tank/delegated/ganesh > NAME PROPERTYVALUE SOURCE > tank/delegated/ganesh mountpoint legacy inherited from > tank > vera / # zonecfg -z ganesh > zonecfg:ganesh> add dataset > zonecfg:ganesh:dataset> set name=tank/delegated/ganesh > zonecfg:ganesh:dataset> end > zonecfg:ganesh> commit > zonecfg:ganesh> exit > vera / # zoneadm -z ganesh boot > could not verify zfs dataset tank/delegated/ganesh: mountpoint cannot be > inherited > zoneadm: zone ganesh failed to verify > vera / # zfs set mountpoint=none tank/delegated/ganesh > vera / # zoneadm -z ganesh boot > vera / # Does it actually boot then? Eric is saying that the filesystem cannot be mounted in the 'none' case, so presumably it doesn't. Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere pgp0ux4tVwC6W.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 'legacy' vs 'none'
On 28/11/06, Terence Patrick Donoghue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there a difference - Yep, 'legacy' tells ZFS to refer to the /etc/vfstab file for FS mounts and options whereas 'none' tells ZFS not to mount the ZFS filesystem at all. Then you would need to manually mount the ZFS using 'zfs set mountpoint=/mountpoint poolname/fsname' to get it mounted. Thanks Terence - now you've explained it, re-reading the manpage makes more sense :) This is plain wrong though: " Zones A ZFS file system can be added to a non-global zone by using zonecfg's "add fs" subcommand. A ZFS file system that is added to a non-global zone must have its mountpoint property set to legacy." It has to be 'none' or it can't be delegated. Could someone change that? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 'legacy' vs 'none'
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 11:13:02AM -0800, Eric Schrock wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 06:06:24PM +, Ceri Davies wrote: > > > > But you could presumably get that exact effect by not listing a > > filesystem in /etc/vfstab. > > > > Yes, but someone could still manually mount the filesystem using 'mount > -F zfs ...'. If you set the mountpoint to 'none', then it cannot be > mounted, period. Aha, that's the key then, thanks. Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere pgpTk6riwrX7S.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
