Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool naming
David,
Appreciated so much for your sharing.
Best Regards,
Adele
On 10/25/2011 10:23 AM, David Magda wrote:
On Tue, October 25, 2011 09:42, adele@oracle.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have a customer who wants to know what is the max characters allowed
in creating name for zpool,
Are there any restrictions in using special characters?
255 characters. Try doing a 'man zpool':
Creates a new storage pool containing the virtual devices specified
on the command line. The pool name must begin with a letter, and
can only contain alphanumeric characters as well as underscore
("_"), dash ("-"), and period ("."). The pool names "mirror",
"raidz", "spare" and "log" are reserved, as are names beginning
with the pattern "c[0-9]". The vdev specification is described in
the "Virtual Devices" section.
Or, use the source Luke:
Going to http://src.opensolaris.org, and searching for "zpool" turns up:
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/zpool/zpool_main.c
Inside of it we have a zpool_do_create() function, which defines a 'char
*poolname' variable. From there we call a zpool_create() in
libzfs/common/libzfs_pool.c to zpool_name_valid() to pool_namecheck(),
where we end up with the following code snippet:
/*
* Make sure the name is not too long.
*
* ZPOOL_MAXNAMELEN is the maximum pool length used in the userland
* which is the same as MAXNAMELEN used in the kernel.
* If ZPOOL_MAXNAMELEN value is changed, make sure to cleanup all
* places using MAXNAMELEN.
*/
if (strlen(pool)>= MAXNAMELEN) {
if (why)
*why = NAME_ERR_TOOLONG;
return (-1);
}
Check the function for further restrictions:
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/common/zfs/zfs_namecheck.c#288
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool naming
On Tue, October 25, 2011 09:42, adele@oracle.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a customer who wants to know what is the max characters allowed
> in creating name for zpool,
>
> Are there any restrictions in using special characters?
255 characters. Try doing a 'man zpool':
Creates a new storage pool containing the virtual devices specified
on the command line. The pool name must begin with a letter, and
can only contain alphanumeric characters as well as underscore
("_"), dash ("-"), and period ("."). The pool names "mirror",
"raidz", "spare" and "log" are reserved, as are names beginning
with the pattern "c[0-9]". The vdev specification is described in
the "Virtual Devices" section.
Or, use the source Luke:
Going to http://src.opensolaris.org, and searching for "zpool" turns up:
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/zpool/zpool_main.c
Inside of it we have a zpool_do_create() function, which defines a 'char
*poolname' variable. From there we call a zpool_create() in
libzfs/common/libzfs_pool.c to zpool_name_valid() to pool_namecheck(),
where we end up with the following code snippet:
/*
* Make sure the name is not too long.
*
* ZPOOL_MAXNAMELEN is the maximum pool length used in the userland
* which is the same as MAXNAMELEN used in the kernel.
* If ZPOOL_MAXNAMELEN value is changed, make sure to cleanup all
* places using MAXNAMELEN.
*/
if (strlen(pool) >= MAXNAMELEN) {
if (why)
*why = NAME_ERR_TOOLONG;
return (-1);
}
Check the function for further restrictions:
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/common/zfs/zfs_namecheck.c#288
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zpool naming
Hi all, I have a customer who wants to know what is the max characters allowed in creating name for zpool, Are there any restrictions in using special characters? Thanks in advance for advise. Adele ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in front of MD3000i
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the MD3000i this (though this[1]
> post seems to reference an Enhanced JBOD mode), so we decided to
> create a whole bunch of RAID0 1-disk LUNs and expose those. Great..
> except that the MD3000i only lets you create 16 LUNs and we have 44
> disks total. :)
>
> Anyone tried this? I guess our best bet will be to just do all the
> RAID stuff on the MD3000i and export one LUN to ZFS.
When i have run into this kind of problem (a RAID unit that either
does not support JBOD or one drive per LUN or enough LUNs), I usually
carve the array disks into small sets of RAID0 and present those to
ZFS. Currently I am reusing some old Sun 3511 arrays, each loaded with
12 x 500GB drives. The 3511 supports one drive LUNs, but discourages
their use (it is for support use only according to the documentation),
so I created RAID0 sets of 2 drives each and ZFS sees 6 x 1TB LUNs.
ZFS then provides my redundancy and data integrity.
--
{1-2-3-4-5-6-7-}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote:
> Some people have trained their fingers to use the -f option on every
> command that supports it to force the operation. For instance, how
> often do you do rm -rf vs. rm -r and answer questions about every
> file?
The last time I tried it, the SUN / ORACLE java webconsole plugin
for ZFS used the -f option on every command issued, including zpool
create and zpool import ... very dangerous in my opinion, which is
part of the reason I don't use that interface.
--
{1-2-3-4-5-6-7-}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs
> Some people have trained their fingers to use the -f option on every > command that supports it to force the operation. For instance, how > often do you do rm -rf vs. rm -r and answer questions about every > file? > > If various zpool commands (import, create, replace, etc.) are used > against the wrong disk with a force option, you can clobber a zpool > that is in active use by another system. In a previous job, my lab > environment had a bunch of LUNs presented to multiple boxes. This was > done for convenience in an environment where there would be little > impact if an errant command were issued. I'd never do that in > production without some form of I/O fencing in place. > I also have that habit. And It is good practice to bear in mind. Thanks. Fred ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs
Paul,
Thanks.
I understand now.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
> Sent: 星期一, 十月 24, 2011 22:38
> To: ZFS Discussions
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Paul Kraus
> wrote:
>
> > Recently someone posted to this list of that _exact_ situation, they
> loaded
> > an OS to a pair of drives while a pair of different drives containing
> an OS
> > were still attached. The zpool on the first pair ended up not being
> able to
> > be imported, and were corrupted. I can post more info when I am back
> in the
> > office on Monday.
>
> See the thread started on Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:23 PM with a
> Subject of "[zfs-discuss] Wrong rpool used after reinstall!", the
> followups, and at least one additional related thread.
>
> While I agree that you _should_ be able to have multiple unrelated
> boot environments on hard drives at once, it seems prudent to me to
> NOT do such. I assume you _can_ manage multiple ZFS based boot
> environments using Live Upgrade (or whatever has replaced it in 11).
> NOTE that I have not done such (managed multiple ZFS boot environments
> with Live Upgrade), but I ASSUME you can.
>
> I suspect that the "root" of this potential problem is in the ZFS
> boot code and the use of the same zpool name for multiple zpools at
> once. By having the boot loader use the zpool directly you get the
> benefit of having the redundancy of ZFS much earlier in the boot
> process (the only thing that appears to load off of a single drive is
> the boot loader, everything from there on loads from the mirrored
> zpool, at least on my NCP 3 system, my first foray into ZFS root). The
> danger is that if there are multiple zpools with the same (required)
> name, then the boot loader may become confused, especially if drives
> get physically moved around.
>
> --
> {1-2-3-4-5-6-7-
> }
> Paul Kraus
> -> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River
> ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
> -> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
> http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
> -> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
> ___
> 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] unsubscribe
unsubscribe ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
