[zfs-discuss] ZFS and Veritas Cluster Server
Hello All, I am working with a customer on a solution where ZFS looks very promising. The solution requires disaster recovery and the chosen technology for providing DR of services in this organisation is Veritas Cluster Server. Has anyone implemented ZFS with Veritas Cluster Server to provide high-availability for ZFS pools and datasets? I understand that Sun Cluster is a better product for use with ZFS, but it is not supported within the organisation and is not available for use within the proposed solution. I am specifically looking for information on implementation experiences and failover testing with ZFS and VCS. Furthermore, if anyone has implemented ZFS on SRDF, I would also be interesting in hearing about those implementation experiences. Any and all input would be most appreciated. Kind Regards, Nathan Dietsch ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Status of Samba/ZFS integration
Sounds like the right solution to my problem in it solves a few problems, but I am rather curious about how it would integrate with a potential Samba server running on the same system (in case someone needs a domain controller as well as a fileserver). 1 - Samba can store the DOS attributes of a file in an xattr. Can sharesmb do that? If so, is it compatible with Samba? 2 - Regarding that, are Resource_Forks/xattr/Alternate_data_streams supported? 3 - How do I set share ACLs (allowed users, and their rights)? 4 - How do I set the share name? 5 - Will it support the smb2 protocol? 5b - ill it work over IPv6? 6 - Is Shadow Copy supported (using zfs snapshots) ? 7 - How will it map nss users to domain users? Will it be able to connect to Winbind? 8 - Kerberos authentication support? 9 - Will it support the NT priviledges? I could select a normal user on my network, and with a simple net rpc rights grant SeBackupPrivilege, SeRestorePrivilege, ACLs can be overridden by that user in a Windows environment. A user of the sharesmb service might expect that. In my personal case, I need 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. And I am sure that more will come-up, as these are the ones that came to my mind right now. Anyway, congratulations on the sharesmb thing. If it has a flexible/configurable implementation (for the ones with complex rules in an environment), but with sane defaults (for normal, users), it will be a hit. Cheers, Razvan 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] Status of Samba/ZFS integration
ZFS has a smb server on the way, but there has been no real public information about it released. Here is a sample of its existence: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2007/560/;jsessionid=F4061C9308088852992B7DE83CD9C1A3 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] Force SATA1 on AOC-SAT2-MV8
The drives (6 in total) are external (eSATA) ones, so they have their own enclosure that I can't open without voiding the warranty... I destroyed one enclosure trying out ways to get it to work and learned that there was no way to open them up without wrecking the case :( I have 2 meter sata to esata cables. The drives are 750GB FreeAgent Pro USB/eSATA drives from Seagate. Thanks for your help. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Status of Samba/ZFS integration
I've tried to set up a SAMBA file server that acts completely identical with a Microsoft Windows 2000 or 2003 one. First of all, the problem with the ACI ordering is simple: The Microsoft ACI specification imposes that the DENY ACIs are put on top. It can be solved with a simple chmod. Problem no.2 the Samba NFSv4 ACL module doesn't interpret owner@, group@, [EMAIL PROTECTED] While the first ones are not surprising, because they have no direct mapping in the Windows well known SIDs list , everyone@ is a very well known Windows SID. These problems can be easily solved by initially setting the ACLs manually using chmod. Problem no.3, there is no umask(1) support for NFSv4 ACI model, thus creating a new file from the UNIX shell or a UNIX program (say FTP) on that ZFS share, will completely mess-up your ACLs from a Windows perspective. Furthermore, I expected that once I set some ACIs, with the inheritance flags on, I would get those ACIs, period. While I do get inheritance of the ACIs, I also get some default ACIs added that kinda represent the traditional UNIX rights (which is very far from what I'm looking for), furthermore, I also expect to be able to ignore the UNIX rights, as mixing the two of them is both confusing and difficult. I think that mixing the two models (the NFSv4 and the Windows one) is improbable and it really does require that you make a choice to favor the Windows model or the NFSv4. Right now I've concluded that the SAMBA NFSv4 ACL support is completely useless, as it allows me to view ACLs set using chmod on an existing file, or change them to other _VALID_ Windows ACLs. Unfortunatelly, as soon as I try to create a new file or directory all of the benefits go to /dev/null, as I get a new file with default ACLs that have nothing to do with the inherited flags I've set, and that are completely invalid on a Windows system. I am sure that we need to have a new zfs attribute that changes the behaviour of the relation between the UNIX attributes and the NFSv4 ACIs (eventually completely ignoring the UNIX ones), as well as specifying that the inherited ACIs are the only-ones that will be applied to a newly created file or directory. We also need to have the samba config file support new file and directory creation masks that are a little more complex than 3 numbers (or to take the inheritance flags more seriously into consideration). We also need to add support to the nfs4acl module for interpreting owner@, group@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED] The ACIs that I needed and that miserably failed me are rather simple (except for a few folders in which I had more complex ones): Domain Admins:rwxdDpaARWc--s:fd---:allow Domain Users:rwxdDpaARWc--s:fd---:allow Administrator:rwxdDpaARWcCos:fd---:allow As you can probably see, I didn't even need deny ACLs. Obviously, I've initially set the ACLs with: chmod -r A=group:Domain\ Admins:rwxdDpaARWc--s:fd---:allow, group:Domain\ Users:rwxdDpaARWc--s:fd---:allow, user:Administrator:rwxdDpaARWcCos:fd---:allow (or something like that), and it worked until I started creating files and folders. I started this thread in the hope that we can make sure that in the future Samba will be able to perfectly emulate a Windows File Server in coordination with ZFS, especially considering Sun's offering in the storage area. I can also come up with technical details about the differences in behavior between a Windows Server and a Samba server on the problematic operations. Cheers, Razvan 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] zpool.cache
I am not seeing this behavior. But I forgot to mention that Iam using FreeBSD. Maybe pawel missed something. Denis 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] zpool.cache
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 04:59:18PM -0700, Denis wrote: > Hi > > What is the correct way to recreate the zpool.cache file? I deleted it > because the devicenames of the vdevs changed. You shouldn't need to delete it. ZFS will automatically update the device paths based on devid when you issue a zpool(1M) command. If you're using files or devices without devids, you can just export it and import it again. > The pool is still intact but I need to import it manually after every > reboot. Once you import it, it will be placed in the zpool.cache file (unless you use '-R'). If you're on x86, you will need to update your boot archive, which should happen automatically on clean reboot. Are you not seeing this behavior? - Eric -- Eric Schrock, FishWorkshttp://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zpool.cache
Hi What is the correct way to recreate the zpool.cache file? I deleted it because the devicenames of the vdevs changed. The pool is still intact but I need to import it manually after every reboot. Denis 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 very slow under xVM
Martin, This is a shot in the dark, but, this seems to be a IO scheduling issue. Since, i am late on this thread, what is the characteristic of the IO: read mostly, appending writes, read, modify write, sequentiality, random, single large file, multiple files. And have you tracked whether any IO is aged much beyond 30 seconds if we are talking about writes. If we were talking about Xen by itself, I am sure their is some type of schedular involvement, that COULD slow down your IO due to fairness or some specified weight against other processes/ threads / tasks. Can you boost the scheduling of the IO task, by making it realtime or giving it a niceness or .. in a experimental environment and comparing stats. Whether this is the bottleneck of your problem would take a closer examination of the various metrics of the system. Mitchell Erblich - Martin wrote: > > > The behaviour of ZFS might vary between invocations, but I don't think that > > is related to xVM. Can you get the results to vary when just booting under > > "bare metal"? > > It's pretty consistently displays the behaviors of good IO (approx 60Mb/s - > 80Mb/s) for about 10-20 seconds, then always drops to approx 2.5 Mb/s for > virtually all of the rest of the output. It always displays this when running > under xVM/Xen with Dom0, and never on bare metal when xVM/Xen isn't booted. > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > 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] Backport of vfs_zfsacl.c to samba 3.0.26a
On 11/2/07, Carson Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As 3.2.0 isn't released yet, and I didn't want to wait, I've backported > vfs_zfsacl.c from SAMBA_3_2. What about licenses? (L)GPLv2/v3 compatibility? -- Tomasz Torcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] CIFS/SMB in (Open)Solaris kernel
Hello all, In case you missed it: > We already had the basic CIFS service building on Solaris but it > took another 8 months, 22 more ARC cases, a lot of helping hands > and many late nights to deliver the project. On October 25th, 2007, > the CIFS service project putback over 800 files, approximately > 370,000 lines of code (including 180,000 lines of new code) to the > Solaris operating system. [...] > In addition to the CIFS/SMB and MSRPC protocols and services: > > We added support for SIDs to Solaris credentials. This solved the > centralized access control problem: CIFS can specify users in terms > of SIDs and ZFS can perform native file system access control using > that information. > > There are various VFS updates and enhancements to support new > attributes, share reservations and mandatory locking. As with the > credential change, this was also a significant effort, which > affected the interface to every file system in Solaris. > > > ZFS enhancements include: > * Support for DOS attributes (archive, hidden, read-only > and system) > * Case-insensitive file name operations. >There are three modes: case-sensitive, case-insensitive > and mixed. > * Support for ubiquitous cross-protocol file sharing > through an option to ensure UTF8-only name encoding. > * Atomic ACL-on-create semantics. > * Enhanced ACL support for compatibility with Windows. > * sharesmb, which is similar to sharenfs. http://blogs.sun.com/amw/entry/cifs_in_solaris Regards, David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Jumpstart integration and the amazing invisible zpool.cache
On 02 November, 2007 - Dave Pratt sent me these 2,0K bytes:
> I've been wrestling with implementing some ZFS mounts for /var and
> /usr into a jumpstart setup. I know that jumpstart does "know" anything
> about zfs as in your can't define ZFS volumes or pools in the profile.
> I've gone ahead and let the JS do a base install into a single ufs slice
> and then attempted to create the zpool and zfs volumes in the finish
> script and ufsdump|ufsrestore the data from the /usr and /var partitions
> into the new zfs volumes. Problem is there doesn't seem to be a way to
> ensure that the zpool is imported into the freshly built system on the
> first reboot.
Ugly hack I've been doing to create ZFS thingies under jumpstart/sparc,
but it works..
---8<--- profile entry ---8<---
filesys c1t1d0s7 free /makezfs logging
or
filesys c1t1d0s7 free /makezfsmirror1 logging
filesys c1t2d0s7 free /makezfsmirror2 logging
---8<--- run first in client_end_script ---8<---
#!/bin/sh
echo ZFS-stuff
dozfs=0
dozfsmirror=0
if [ -d /a/makezfs ]; then
dozfs=1
fi
if [ -d /a/makezfsmirror1 ]; then
dozfs=1
dozfsmirror=1
fi
test $dozfs = 1 || exit 0
if [ $dozfsmirror = 1 ]; then
umount /a/makezfsmirror1
umount /a/makezfsmirror2
disk1=`grep /makezfsmirror1 /a/etc/vfstab|awk '{print $1}'`
disk2=`grep /makezfsmirror2 /a/etc/vfstab|awk '{print $1}'`
else
umount /a/makezfs
disk1=`grep /makezfs /a/etc/vfstab|awk '{print $1}'`
fi
perl -p -i.bak -e 's,.*/makezfs.*,#,' /a/etc/vfstab
# do it twice due to bug, see
# http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6566433
zpool create -f -R /a -m /data data $disk1 || zpool create -f -R /a -m /data
data $disk1
if [ "x$disk2" != "x" ]; then
zpool attach data $disk1 $disk2
fi
zfs set compression=on data
zfs set mountpoint=none data
zfs create data/lap
zfs create data/scratch
zfs create data/postfixspool
zfs set mountpoint=/lap data/lap
zfs set mountpoint=/scratch data/scratch
mkdir -p /a/var/spool/postfix
zfs set mountpoint=/var/spool/postfix data/postfixspool
zfs set reservation=256M data/postfixspool
echo ZFS-stuff done
---8<--- run last in client_end_script ---8<---
#!/bin/sh
zpool list | grep -w data > /dev/null || exit 0
echo /sbin/zpool export data
/sbin/zpool export data
echo /sbin/mount -F lofs /devices /a/devices
/sbin/mount -F lofs /devices /a/devices
echo chroot /a /sbin/zpool import data
chroot /a /sbin/zpool import data
The final step is the trick ;)
/Tomas
--
Tomas Ögren, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS very slow under xVM
> The behaviour of ZFS might vary between invocations, but I don't think that > is related to xVM. Can you get the results to vary when just booting under > "bare metal"? It's pretty consistently displays the behaviors of good IO (approx 60Mb/s - 80Mb/s) for about 10-20 seconds, then always drops to approx 2.5 Mb/s for virtually all of the rest of the output. It always displays this when running under xVM/Xen with Dom0, and never on bare metal when xVM/Xen isn't booted. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
