[zfs-discuss] Why does disable loading of zfs module in boot causes problems
Hello, I tried to disable loading of the zfs module by adding exclude zfs in /etc/system. I rebooted and got into maintainance mode with many services disbaled (as svcs -xv shows). I don't have any zfs partitons on this machine. So my question is: for what is the zfs module in booting of solaris ? Why can't it be disabled? Regards, David 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: [security-discuss] Thoughts on ZFS Secure Delete - without using Crypto
Darren J Moffat wrote: Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: I like the idea, I really do, but it will be s expensive because of ZFS' COW model. Not only file removal or truncation will call bleaching, but every single file system modification... Heh, well, if privacy of your data is important enough, you probably don't care too much about performance. I'm not sure it will be that slow, the bleaching will be done in a separate (new) transaction group in most (probably all) cases anyway so it shouldn't really impact your write performance unless you are very I/O bound and already running near the limit. However this is speculation until someone tries to implement this! What happens if fatal failure occurs after the txg which frees blocks have been written but before before txg doing bleaching will be started/completed? I for one would prefer encryption, which may turns out to be much faster than bleaching and also more secure. At least NIST, under I believe the guidance of the NSA, does not consider that encryption and key destruction alone is sufficient in all cases. Which is why I'm proposing this as complementary. True, dropping the keys leaves lots of encrypted material for determined cryptoanalytic to analyze, so it should be bleached in some good way. Victor ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: [security-discuss] Thoughts on ZFS Secure Delete - without using Crypto
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 14:01 +0300, Victor Latushkin wrote: What happens if fatal failure occurs after the txg which frees blocks have been written but before before txg doing bleaching will be started/completed? clearly you'd need to store the unbleached list persistently in the pool. transactions which freed blocks (by punching holes in the allocation space map) would instead or additionally move them to the unbleached list; a separate bleaching task queue would pick blocks off the unbleached list, bleach them; only once bleaching was complete would they be removed from the unbleached list. In the face of a crash, some blocks might get bleached twice. - Bill ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: [security-discuss] Thoughts on ZFS Secure Delete - without using Crypto
Bill Sommerfeld wrote: On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 14:01 +0300, Victor Latushkin wrote: What happens if fatal failure occurs after the txg which frees blocks have been written but before before txg doing bleaching will be started/completed? clearly you'd need to store the unbleached list persistently in the pool. Which could then be easily referenced to find all the blocks that were recently deleted but not yet bleached? Is my paranoia running a bit too high? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN froma SAN
Hi Robert, MPxIO had correctly moved the paths. More than one path to controller A was OK, and one patch to controller A for each LUN was active when controller B was rebooted. I have a hunch that the array was at fault, because it also rebooted a Windows server with LUNs only on Controller A. In the case of the Windows server Engenios RDAC was handling multipathing. Overall, not a big deal, I just wouldn't trust the array to do a hitless commanded controller failover or firmware upgrade. -J On 12/22/06, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Jason, Friday, December 22, 2006, 5:55:38 PM, you wrote: JJWW Just for what its worth, when we rebooted a controller in our array JJWW (we pre-moved all the LUNs to the other controller), despite using JJWW MPXIO ZFS kernel panicked. Verified that all the LUNs were on the JJWW correct controller when this occurred. Its not clear why ZFS thought JJWW it lost a LUN but it did. We have done cable pulling using ZFS/MPXIO JJWW before and that works very well. It may well be array-related in our JJWW case, but I hate anyone to have a false sense of security. Did you first check (with format for example) if LUNs were really accessible? If MPxIO worked ok and at least one path is ok then ZFS won't panic. -- 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] Re: Advice Wanted - sharing across multiple non global zones
Hi.. After searching hi low, I cannot find the answer for what I want to do (or at least understand how to do it). I am hopeful somebody can point me in the right direction. I have (2) non global zones (samba www) I want to be able to have all user home dir's served from zone samba AND be visable under zone www as the users public_html dir. I have looked at delegating a dataset to samba and creating a new fs for each user but then I cannot share that with www. I also tried creating the fs under the global zone and mounting that via lofs but that did not seem to carry over each underlying fs and lost the quota capability. I cannot share via NFS since non global zones cannot mount from the same server. How can I achieve what I want to do? The requirements are: User Quotas (needs a file system for each user) Share file systems across multiple non global zones (rw) I have close to 3000 users so it must be a manageable approach and hopefully allow me to use the root preexec of samba to auto create user dir's. Have a peek at this page: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/howtoguides/s10securityhowto.jsp I believe it may give you some insights to your final objective. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Saving scrub results before scrub completes
Hello All, I am wondering if there is a way to save the scrub results right before the scrub is complete. After upgrading to Solaris 10U3 I still have ZFS panicing right as the scrub completes. The scrub results seem to be cleared when system boots back up, so I never get a chance to see them. Does anyone know of a simple way? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
