Re: [zfs-discuss] RBAC and ZFS FileSystemManagement
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 16:29 -0700, Jonathan Adams wrote:
> Yeah; you need to be using a profile shell to get access to profile-enabled
> commands:
>
> $ zfs create pool/aux2
> cannot create 'pool/aux2': permission denied
> $ pfksh
> $ zfs create pool/aux2
> $ exit
> $
>
> Either set your shell to pf{k,c,}sh, or run it explicitly.
>
>
> Cheers,
> - jonathan
>
pfexec zfs create pool/aux2
from your regular shell will work as well
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RBAC and ZFS FileSystemManagement
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 06:08:18PM -0500, James Dickens wrote:
> I think I have found a bug in ZFS profiles as defined in
> # uname -av
> SunOS enterprise 5.11 snv_39 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
> #
>
> # usermod -P "ZFS File System Management" zfsadmin
>
> # su zfsadmin
>
> # zfs create pool2/testzfsprofile
> cannot create 'pool2/testzfsprofile': permission denied
> # ppriv -De zfs create pool2/testzfsprofile
> zfs[5300]: missing privilege "sys_mount" (euid = 150026, syscall = 54)
> needed at zfs_secpolicy_parent+0x68
> cannot create 'pool2/testzfsprofile': permission denied
> #
>
> shouldn't a user with ZFS FileSystem Mangement profile be able to
> create and mount a ZFS file system? is there something i'm missing
> here?
Yeah; you need to be using a profile shell to get access to profile-enabled
commands:
$ zfs create pool/aux2
cannot create 'pool/aux2': permission denied
$ pfksh
$ zfs create pool/aux2
$ exit
$
Either set your shell to pf{k,c,}sh, or run it explicitly.
Cheers,
- jonathan
--
Jonathan Adams, Solaris Kernel Development
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] RBAC and ZFS FileSystemManagement
I think I have found a bug in ZFS profiles as defined in # uname -av SunOS enterprise 5.11 snv_39 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2 # # usermod -P "ZFS File System Management" zfsadmin # su zfsadmin # zfs create pool2/testzfsprofile cannot create 'pool2/testzfsprofile': permission denied # ppriv -De zfs create pool2/testzfsprofile zfs[5300]: missing privilege "sys_mount" (euid = 150026, syscall = 54) needed at zfs_secpolicy_parent+0x68 cannot create 'pool2/testzfsprofile': permission denied # shouldn't a user with ZFS FileSystem Mangement profile be able to create and mount a ZFS file system? is there something i'm missing here? ZFS File system Management – Provides the ability to create, destroy, and modify ZFS file systems James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Supporting ~10K users on ZFS
Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Steve, Thursday, June 29, 2006, 5:54:50 PM, you wrote: SB> I've noticed another possible issue - each mount consumes about 45KB of SB> memory - not an issue with tens or hundreds of filesystems, but going SB> back to the 10,000 user scenario this would be 450MB of memory. I know SB> that memory is cheap, but it's still a pretty noticeable amount. How did you measure it? (I'm not saying it doesn't take those 45kB - just I haven't checked it myself and I wonder how you checked it). Each filesystem holding onto memory (unnecessarily if no one is using that filesystem) is something we're thinking about changing. SB> The ability to mount a tree of ZFS filesystems in one go would be useful. SB> I know the reasons for not doing this on traditional filesystems - does they SB> apply to ZFS too? I'm not sure but IIRC there were changes to NFS v4 to allow it - but you should check (search opensolaris newsgroups). Right - NFSv4 allows client's to cross filesystem boundaries. Trond just recently added this support into the linux client (see http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/erickustarz/20060417 ). We're getting closer to adding this to the Solaris client (within Sun, we call it mirror mounts). What about using the automounter? eric ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Supporting ~10K users on ZFS
> > I just tried a quick test on Sol10u2: > for x in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do for y in 0 1 2 > 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > zfs create testpool/$x$y; zfs set quota=1024k > testpool/$x$y >done; done > ologies for the formatting - is there any way to > preformat text on this forum?] Remove the quota from the loop, and before the loop do a zfs set quota=1024k testpool. This should be a more efficent Doug 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: Supporting ~10K users on ZFS
Hello Steve, Thursday, June 29, 2006, 5:54:50 PM, you wrote: SB> I've noticed another possible issue - each mount consumes about 45KB of SB> memory - not an issue with tens or hundreds of filesystems, but going SB> back to the 10,000 user scenario this would be 450MB of memory. I know SB> that memory is cheap, but it's still a pretty noticeable amount. How did you measure it? (I'm not saying it doesn't take those 45kB - just I haven't checked it myself and I wonder how you checked it). SB> The ability to mount a tree of ZFS filesystems in one go would be useful. SB> I know the reasons for not doing this on traditional filesystems - does they SB> apply to ZFS too? I'm not sure but IIRC there were changes to NFS v4 to allow it - but you should check (search opensolaris newsgroups). SB> In our case - we have an upgrade of a 10,000 user system scheduled for SB> later this summer - I think the differences are too great. If we were SB> able to start with one filesystem and then slice pieces off it as we SB> gain more confidence we'd probably use zfs. As it is I think we'll try SB> zfs on smaller systems first and maybe think again next summer. You can start with one filesystem and migrate account by account later. Just create pool named home and put all users in their dirs inside that pool (/home/joe /home/tom ...). Now if you want migrate /home/joe to its own filesystem all you have to do is (while user is not logged): mv /home/joe /home/joe_old; zfs create home/joe; tar .. you get the idea. btw: I belive it was discussed here before - it would be great if one would automatically convert given directory on zfs filesystem into zfs filesystem (without actually copying all data) and vice versa (making given zfs filesystem a directory) -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] two simple questions
1) We installed ZFS onto our Solaris 10 T2000 3 months ago. I have been told our ZFS code is downrev. What is the recommended way to upgrade ZFS on a production system (we want minimum downtime)? Can it safely be done without affecting our 3.5 million files? 2) We did not turn on compression as most of our 3+ million files are already gzipped. What is the performance penalty of having compression on (both read and write numbers)? Is there advantage to compressing already gzipped files? Should compression be the default when installing ZFS? Nearly all our files are ASCII. here is some info on our machine itsm-mpk-2% showrev Hostname: itsm-mpk-2 Hostid: 83d8d784 Release: 5.10 Kernel architecture: sun4v Application architecture: sparc Hardware provider: Sun_Microsystems Domain: Kernel version: SunOS 5.10 Generic_118833-08 T2000 32x1000mhz, 16gigs RAM. # zpool status pool: canary state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM canary ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t0d0s3 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool iostat 1 capacity operationsbandwidth pool used avail read write read write -- - - - - - - canary 42.0G 12.0G169223 8.92M 1.39M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0732 0 3.05M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0573 0 2.47M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0515 0 2.22M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0680 0 3.11M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0620 0 2.80M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0687 0 2.85M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0568 0 2.40M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0688 0 2.91M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0634 0 2.75M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0625 0 2.61M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0700 0 2.96M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0733 0 3.19M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0639 0 2.76M canary 42.0G 12.0G 1573 127K 2.89M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0652 0 2.48M canary 42.0G 12.0G 0713 63.4K 3.55M canary 42.0G 12.0G117355 7.83M 782K canary 42.0G 12.0G 43616 2.97M 1.11M canary 42.0G 12.0G128424 8.60M 1.57M canary 42.0G 12.0G288151 18.9M 795K canary 42.0G 12.0G364 0 23.9M 0 canary 42.0G 12.0G387 0 25.6M 0 thanks sean ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS home/JDS interaction issue
Thomas Maier-Komor wrote: Hi, I just upgraded my machine at home to Solaris 10U2. As I already had a ZFS, I wanted to migrate my home directories at once to a ZFS from a local UFS metadisk. Copying and changing the config of the automounter succeeded without any problems. But when I tried to login to JDS, login suceeded, but JDS did not start and the X session gets always terminated after a couple of seconds. /var/dt/Xerrors says that /dev/fb could not be accessed, although it works without any problem when running from the UFS filesystem. Switching back to my UFS based home resolved this issue. I even tried switching over to ZFS and rebooted the machine to make 100% sure everything is in a sane state (i.e. no gconfd etc.), but the issue persisted and switching back to UFS again resolved this issue. Has anybody else had similar problems? Any idea how to resolve this? TIA, Tom I'm running w/ ZFS mounted home directories both on my home and work machines; my work desktop has ZFS root as well. Are you sure you moved just your home directory? Is the automounter config the same (wrt to setuid, etc)? Can you log in as root when ZFS is your home directory? If not, there's something else going on - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS root install
My latest blog details the steps needed to access your zfs root filesystem from miniroot. It would probably be wise if you set this up before you need it :) http://solaristhings.blogspot.com Doug 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: Supporting ~10K users on ZFS
> There is no 40 filesystem limit. You most likely had a pre-existing > file/directory in testpool of the same name of the filesystem > you tried to create. I'm absolutely sure that I didn't. This was a freshly created pool. Having said that, I recreated the pool just now and tried again and it worked fine. I'll let you know if I manage to repeat the previous problem. > So this really depends on why and when you're unmounting > filesystems. I suspect it won't matter much since you > won't be unmounting/remounting your filesystems. I was thinking of reboot times, but I've just tried with 1000 filesystems and it seemed to be much quicker than when I mounted them one-by-one. Presumably there's a lot of optimisation that can be done when all filesystems in a pool are mounted simultaneously. I've noticed another possible issue - each mount consumes about 45KB of memory - not an issue with tens or hundreds of filesystems, but going back to the 10,000 user scenario this would be 450MB of memory. I know that memory is cheap, but it's still a pretty noticeable amount. > >Others have already been through the problems with standard > >tools such as 'df' becoming less useful. > > Is there a specific problem you had in mind regarding 'df;? The fact that you get 10,000 lines of output from df certainly makes it less useful. Some awkward users, and we have plenty of them, might complain (possibly with some justification) that they would prefer that other users not be able to see their quota and disk usage. And I've found another problem. We use NFS, and currently it's pretty straightforward to mount thing:/export/home on another box. With 10,000 filesystems it's not so straightforward - especially since the current structure (which it would be annoying to change) is /export/home/XX/username (where XX is a 2 digit number). The ability to mount a tree of ZFS filesystems in one go would be useful. I know the reasons for not doing this on traditional filesystems - does they apply to ZFS too? > I wouldn't give up that easily... looks like 1 filesystem per > user, and 1 quota per filesystem does exactly what you want I'm not giving up! My thought is that ZFS presents a *huge* change, and retaining 'legacy' quotas as an optional mechanism would help to ease people into it by allowing them to change a bit more gradually. In our case - we have an upgrade of a 10,000 user system scheduled for later this summer - I think the differences are too great. If we were able to start with one filesystem and then slice pieces off it as we gain more confidence we'd probably use zfs. As it is I think we'll try zfs on smaller systems first and maybe think again next summer. Thanks for your help. Steve. 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] ZFS and Storage
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:30:25AM -0400, Jeff Victor wrote: For example, if ZFS is mirroring a pool across two different storage arrays, a firmware error in one of them will cause problems that ZFS will detect when it tries to read the data. Further, ZFS would be able to correct the error by reading from the other mirror, unless the second array also suffered from a firmware error. In this case ZFS is going to help. I agree. But how often you meet such solution (mirror of two different storage arrays) ? I have never seen this for cabinet-sized storage systems, because they offer the ability to perform on-line maintenance. But I do see mirroring to two arrays for small arrays, which typically do not offer on-line maintenance. -- -- Jeff VICTOR Sun Microsystemsjeff.victor @ sun.com OS AmbassadorSr. Technical Specialist Solaris 10 Zones FAQ:http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zones/faq -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: performance for small reads/writes
Hi there. I have a telco customer who has a home grown application which deals with inter carrier sms. Basically all this application does is read an sms request and write it to a queue. However that's lots and lots of very small reads and writes. They've done performance testing on a number of filesystems and have found that "riserfs" performs best in this situation. Can anyone tell me if zfs would perform well under this kind of workload. Please respond direct as I'm not on this alias. many thanks, Mike -- Both read and write are to/from the filesystem here ? No network involved ? As stated this looks an ideal terrain for ZFS. -r ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Storage
Hello przemolicc, Thursday, June 29, 2006, 10:08:23 AM, you wrote: ppf> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:01:15AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: >> Hello przemolicc, >> >> Thursday, June 29, 2006, 8:01:26 AM, you wrote: >> >> ppf> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: >> >> ppf> What I wanted to point out is the Al's example: he wrote about >> >> damaged data. Data >> >> ppf> were damaged by firmware _not_ disk surface ! In such case ZFS >> >> doesn't help. ZFS can >> >> ppf> detect (and repair) errors on disk surface, bad cables, etc. But >> >> cannot detect and repair >> >> ppf> errors in its (ZFS) code. >> >> >> >> Not in its code but definitely in a firmware code in a controller. >> >> ppf> As Jeff pointed out: if you mirror two different storage arrays. >> >> Not only I belive. There are some classes of problems that even in one >> array ZFS could help for fw problems (with many controllers in >> active-active config like Symetrix). ppf> Any real example ? I wouldn't say such problems are common. The issue is we don't know. From time to time some files are bad, sometimes fsck is needed with no apparent reason. I think only the future will tell how and when ZFS will protect us. All I can say there's big potential in ZFS. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS home/JDS interaction issue
Hi, I just upgraded my machine at home to Solaris 10U2. As I already had a ZFS, I wanted to migrate my home directories at once to a ZFS from a local UFS metadisk. Copying and changing the config of the automounter succeeded without any problems. But when I tried to login to JDS, login suceeded, but JDS did not start and the X session gets always terminated after a couple of seconds. /var/dt/Xerrors says that /dev/fb could not be accessed, although it works without any problem when running from the UFS filesystem. Switching back to my UFS based home resolved this issue. I even tried switching over to ZFS and rebooted the machine to make 100% sure everything is in a sane state (i.e. no gconfd etc.), but the issue persisted and switching back to UFS again resolved this issue. Has anybody else had similar problems? Any idea how to resolve this? TIA, Tom 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] ZFS and Storage
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:01:15AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: > Hello przemolicc, > > Thursday, June 29, 2006, 8:01:26 AM, you wrote: > > ppf> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: > >> ppf> What I wanted to point out is the Al's example: he wrote about > >> damaged data. Data > >> ppf> were damaged by firmware _not_ disk surface ! In such case ZFS > >> doesn't help. ZFS can > >> ppf> detect (and repair) errors on disk surface, bad cables, etc. But > >> cannot detect and repair > >> ppf> errors in its (ZFS) code. > >> > >> Not in its code but definitely in a firmware code in a controller. > > ppf> As Jeff pointed out: if you mirror two different storage arrays. > > Not only I belive. There are some classes of problems that even in one > array ZFS could help for fw problems (with many controllers in > active-active config like Symetrix). Any real example ? przemol ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Storage
Hello przemolicc, Thursday, June 29, 2006, 8:01:26 AM, you wrote: ppf> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: >> ppf> What I wanted to point out is the Al's example: he wrote about damaged >> data. Data >> ppf> were damaged by firmware _not_ disk surface ! In such case ZFS doesn't >> help. ZFS can >> ppf> detect (and repair) errors on disk surface, bad cables, etc. But cannot >> detect and repair >> ppf> errors in its (ZFS) code. >> >> Not in its code but definitely in a firmware code in a controller. ppf> As Jeff pointed out: if you mirror two different storage arrays. Not only I belive. There are some classes of problems that even in one array ZFS could help for fw problems (with many controllers in active-active config like Symetrix). -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS and Storage
Hello Philip, Thursday, June 29, 2006, 2:58:41 AM, you wrote: PB> Erik Trimble wrote: >> >> Since the best way to get this is to use a Mirror or RAIDZ vdev, I'm >> assuming that the proper way to get benefits from both ZFS and HW RAID >> is the following: >> >> (1) ZFS mirror of HW stripes, i.e. "zpool create tank mirror >> hwStripe1 hwStripe2" >> (2) ZFS RAIDZ of HW mirrors, i.e. "zpool create tank raidz hwMirror1, >> hwMirror2" >> (3) ZFS RAIDZ of HW stripes, i.e. "zpool create tank raidz hwStripe1, >> hwStripe2" >> >> mirrors of mirrors and raidz of raid5 is also possible, but I'm pretty >> sure they're considerably less useful than the 3 above. >> >> Personally, I can't think of a good reason to use ZFS with HW RAID5; >> case (3) above seems to me to provide better performance with roughly >> the same amount of redundancy (not quite true, but close). >> PB> I almost regret extending this thread more :-) but I havent seen anyone PB> spell out one thing in simple language, so i'll attempt to do that now. PB> #2 is incredibly wasteful of space, so I'm not going to address it. it is PB> highly redundant, that's great. if you need it, do it. I'm more concerned PB> with the concept of PB> zfs of two hardware raid boxes that have internal disk redundancy PB> vs PB> zfs of two hardware raid boxes that are pure stripes (raid 0) PB> (doesnt matter if using zfs mirror vs raidz to me, for this aspect of things) PB> The point that I think people should remember, is that if you lose a drive PB> in a pure raid0 configuration... your time to recover that hwraid unit and PB> bring it back to full operation in the filesystem.. is HUGE. PB> It will most likely be unacceptibly long. hours if not days, for a decent PB> sized raid box. Not really. You can create many smaller raid-0 luns in one array and then do raid-10 in zfs. That should also expand your available depth queue and minimize impact of resilvering. Storage capacity would still be the same. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
