Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS back on Mac OS X
MacZFS has been running on OSX since Apple dropped the ball, but only up to onnv_74 for the stable branch. Alex Sent from my iPhone 4 On 15 Mar 2011, at 15:21, Jerry Kemp sun.mail.lis...@oryx.cc wrote: FYI. This came across a Mac OS X server list that I am subscribed to. Jerry + Don Brady, former senior Apple engineer has started a company to bring what appears to be a commercially supported version of ZFS to OS X. Ten's Complement: http://info.tenscomplement.com/ Details are sparse, but they have a twitter feed and email newsletter. When I signed up I got a invitation to join the beta program. From his twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/tenscomplement): $ uname -prs Darwin 10.6.0 i386 $ zpool upgrade This system is currently running ZFS pool version 28. ___ 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] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Dec 11, 2010, at 14:15, Frank Van Damme wrote: 2010/12/10 Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote: It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward? Nexenta ... openindiana ... etc ... Are they all screwed? ZFSv28 is available for FreeBSD 9-CURRENT. We won't know until after Oracle releases Solaris 11 whether or not they'll live up to their promise to open the source to ZFSv31. Until Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in debating it. And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms of Oracle not really getting the point about open source development. I think it's a known fact that Oracle hasn't got the point of open source development. Forks ahoy! http://www.jroller.com/niclas/entry/apache_leaves_jcp_ec ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] non-ECC Systems and ZFS for home users
On 25 Sep 2010, at 19:56, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote: We have correctable memory errors on ECC systems on a monthly basis. It's not if they'll happen but how often. DRAM Errors in the wild: a large-scale field study is worth a read if you have time. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf Alex (@alblue on Twitter) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mirrored pool unimportable (FAULTED)
On 28 Aug 2010, at 16:25, Norbert Harder n.har...@d3vnull.de wrote: Later, since the development of the ZFS extension was discontinued ... The MacZFS project lives on at Google Code and http://github.com/alblue/mac-zfs Not that it helps if the data has already become corrupted. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirrored raidz
On 26 Jul 2010, at 19:51, Dav Banks davba...@virginia.edu wrote: I wanted to test it as a backup solution. Maybe that's crazy in itself but I want to try it. Basically, once a week detach the 'backup' pool from the mirror, replace the drives, add the new raidz to the mirror and let it resilver and sit for a week. Why not do it the other way around? Create a pool which consists of mirrored pairs (or triples) of drives. You don't need raidz to make it appear that the pool is bigger and it will use disks in the pool appropriately. If you want to have more copies of data, set copies=2 and zfs will try to schedule writes across different mirrored pairs. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS compression
On 25 Jul 2010, at 14:12, Ben ben.lav...@gmail.com wrote: I've read a small amount about compression, enough to find that it'll effect performance (not a problem for me) and that once you enable compression it only effects new files written to the file system. Yes, that's true. Compression on defaults to lzjb which is fast; but gzip-9 can be twice as good. (I've just done some tests on the MacZFS port on my blog for more info) Is this still true of b134? And if it is, how can I compress all of the current data on the file system? Do I have to move it off then back on? Any changes to the filesystem only take effect on newly written/updated files. You could do a cp to force a rewrite but in the interim would take space for the old and new copies; furthermore, if you have snapshots, then even removing the old (uncompressed) files won't get the space back. If you destroy all snapshots, then do a cp/rm on a file by file basis you may be able to do an in-place compression. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
On 9 Jul 2010, at 08:55, James Van Artsdalen james-opensola...@jrv.org wrote: On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Yep. Provided it supported ZFS, a Mac Mini makes for a compelling SOHO server. Warning: a Mac Mini does not have eSATA ports for external storage. It's dangerous to use USB for external storage since many (most? all?) USB-SATA chips discard SYNC instead of passing FLUSH to the drive - very bad for ZFS. All Mac Minis have FireWire - the new ones have FW800. In any case, the server class mini has two internal hard drives which make them amenable to mirroring. The Mac ZFS port limps on in any case - though I've not managed to spend much time on it recently, I have been making progress this week. The Google code project is at http://code.google.com/p/maczfs/ and my Github is at http://github.com/alblue/ for those that are interested. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
On 9 Jul 2010, at 20:38, Garrett D'Amore wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:02 -0400, Miles Nordin wrote: ab == Alex Blewitt alex.blew...@gmail.com writes: ab All Mac Minis have FireWire - the new ones have FW800. I tried attaching just two disks to a ZFS host using firewire, and it worked very badly for me. I found: 1. The solaris firewire stack isn't as good as the Mac OS one. Indeed. There has been some improvement here in the past year or two, but I still wouldn't deem it ready for serious production work. That may be true for Solaris; but not so for Mac OS X. And after all, that's what I'm working to get ZFS on. 3. The quality of software inside the firewire cases varies wildly and is a big source of stability problems. (even on mac) It would be good if you could refrain from spreading FUD if you don't have experience with it. I have used FW400 and FW800 on Mac systems for the last 8 years; the only problem was with the Oxford 911 chipset in OSX 10.1 days. Since then, I've not experienced any issues to do with the bus itself. It may not suit everyone's needs, and it may not be supported well on OpenSolaris, but it works fine on a Mac. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: Jason King ja...@ansipunx.net wrote: Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL licensed, but I don't think that's the case. As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the Linux kernel. You are sadly mistaken. From GNU.org on license compatibilities: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0 This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual property”. Whether a license is classified as Open Source or not does not imply that all open source licenses are compatible with each other. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:03, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alex Blewitt alex.blew...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: Jason King ja...@ansipunx.net wrote: Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL licensed, but I don't think that's the case. As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the Linux kernel. You are sadly mistaken. From GNU.org on license compatibilities: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html What you read there is completely wrong :-( The FSF even knows that it is wrong as the FSF did never sue Veritas for publishing a modified version of GNU tar that links against close source libs from veritas. The best you can do is to ignore it and to ask independent lawyers. I encourage you to read my other post that in depth explains why the FSF publishes incorrect claims. There was nothing there other than fluff from a different website, though. And your argument Look, it says it's Open Source here means that they are compatible is not the generally held position of almost everyone else who has looked into this. The GPL doesn't prevent you doing things. However, it does withdraw the agreement that you are permitted to copy someone else's work if you do those things. So whilst one can compile and link code together, you may not have the rights to use other's code without every committers individual agreement that you can copy their code. The GPL doesn't prevent; it just withdraws rights - without which, you may be breaking copyright. And the GPL has been tested a number of times in court with regards to copyright violations where the GPL no longer covers you to do the same. As an observation, the Eclipse Foundation lawyers have agreed that the GPL is incompatible with the EPL for the same reasons: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] why both dedup and compression?
Dedup came much later than compression. Also, compression saves both space and therefore load time even when there's only one copy. It is especially good for e.g. HTML or man page documentation which tends to compress very well (versus binary formats like images or MP3s that don't). It gives me an extra, say, 10g on my laptop's 80g SSD which isn't bad. Alex Sent from my (new) iPhone On 6 May 2010, at 02:06, Richard Jahnel rich...@ellipseinc.com wrote: I've googled this for a bit, but can't seem to find the answer. What does compression bring to the party that dedupe doesn't cover already? Thank you for you patience and answers. -- 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] Mac OS X clients with ZFS server
On 22 Apr 2010, at 20:50, Rich Teer rich.t...@rite-group.com wrote: On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Alex Blewitt wrote: Hi Alex, For your information, the ZFS project lives (well, limps really) on at http://code.google.com/p/mac-zfs. You can get ZFS for Snow Leopard from there and we're working on moving forwards from the ancient pool support to something more recent. I've relatively recently merged in the onnv-gate repository (at build 72) which should make things easier to track in the future. That's good to hear! I thought Apple yanking ZFS support from Mac OS was a really dumb idea. Do you work for Apple? No, the entire effort is community based. Please feel free to join up to the mailing list from the project page if you're interested in ZFS on Mac OSX. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X clients with ZFS server
Rich, Shawn, Of course, it probably doesn't help that Apple, in their infinite wisdom, canned native suport for ZFS in Snow Leopard (idiots). For your information, the ZFS project lives (well, limps really) on at http://code.google.com/p/mac-zfs. You can get ZFS for Snow Leopard from there and we're working on moving forwards from the ancient pool support to something more recent. I've relatively recently merged in the onnv-gate repository (at build 72) which should make things easier to track in the future. Ah. The file systems I'm trying to use are locally attached to the server, and shared via NFS. What are the problems? I have read-write files over a (Mac-exported) ZFS share via NFS to Mac clients, and that has no problem at all. It's possible that it could be permissions related, especially if you're using NFSv4 - AFAIK the Mac client is an alpha stage of that on Snow Leopard. You could try listing the files (from OSX) with ls -...@e which should show you all the extended attributes and ACLs to see if that's causing a problem. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/OSOL/Firewire...
On 19 Mar 2010, at 15:30, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Khyron wrote: Getting better FireWire performance on OpenSolaris would be nice though. Darwin drivers are open...hmmm. OS-X is only (legally) used on Apple hardware. Has anyone considered that since Firewire is important to Apple, they may have selected a particular Firewire chip which performs particularly well? Darwin is open-source. http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1486.2.11/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/IOFireWireFamily/IOFireWireFamily-417.4.0/ Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB 3.0 possibilities
On Feb 22, 2010, at 18:02, Richard Elling wrote: On Feb 22, 2010, at 9:46 AM, A. Krijgsman wrote: Today I received a commecial offer on some external USB 3.0 disk enclosure. Since it was new to me I googled my way to wikipedia and found that the specs say USB 3.0 should have a 5 Gbit speeds capability. Could it be an interesting solution to build a very cheap storage area network? ( Ofcourse ZFS in the middle to manage the shares. ) Or is this wishfull (e.g. bad) thinking? It all depends on if the USB disk honors cache flush commands. 'Cheap' is the keyword - you get what you pay for. I found with some USB drives that ZFS scrubs were showing hundreds of checksum errors, so I ditched the drives straight away. The problem is more the firmware rather than the interface itself; but you won't know until you find it. On the other hand, I've not found drives with FireWire 800 support to have problems, and in any case, FW800 has a better real-world throughput than USB2. By the time you go much above it, you end up with a single drive's spindle being the bottleneck rather than the bus - though of course, multiple drives will start to fill up a bus anyway. It's worth noting that USB leeches control from the host computer, so even if the bandwidth is there, the performance might not be for several competing drives on the same bus, regardless of how big the number is printed. Here's some (old) analysis of ZFS and HFS on USB and firewire: http://alblue.blogspot.com/2008/04/review-iomega-ultramax-and-hfz-vs-zfs.html How much that translates over to USB 3, I don't know, but there's a difference between 'theoretical' and 'practical'. It would be good to see what kind of performance numbers you can come up with, or if you run into the same kind of problems with USB that existed for slower models. (Sadly, the planned FW3200 seems to have disappeared into a hole in the ground.) Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS compression on Clearcase
On 4 Feb 2010, at 16:35, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Darren J Moffat wrote: Thanks - IBM basically haven't test clearcase with ZFS compression therefore, they don't support currently. Future may change, as such my customer cannot use compression. I have asked IBM for roadmap info to find whether/when it will be supported. That is FUD generation in my opinion and being overly cautious. The whole point of the POSIX interfaces to a filesystem is that applications don't actually care how the filesystem stores their data. Clearcase itself implements a versioning filesystem so perhaps it is not being overly cautious. Compression could change aspects such as how free space is reported. I'd also like to echo Bob's observations here. Darren's FUDFUD is based on limited experience of ClearCase, I expect ... On the client side, ClearCase actually presnets itself as a mounted filesystem, regardless of what the OS has under the covers. In other words, a ClearCase directory will never be 'ZFS' because it's not ZFS, it's ClearCaseFS. On the server side (which might be the case here) the way ClearCase works is to represent the files and contents in a way more akin to a database (e.g. Oracle) than traditional file-system approaches to data (e.g. CVS, SVN). In much the same way there are app-specific issues with ZFS (e.g. matching block-sizes, dealing with ZFS snapshots on a VM image and so forth) there may well be some with ClearCase. At the very least, though, IBM may just be unable/willing to test it at the time and put their stamp of approval on it. In many cases for IBM products, there are supported platforms (often with specific patch levels), much like there are offically supported Solaris platforms and hot-fixes to go for certain applications. They may well just being cautious in what there is until they've had time to test it out for themselves - or more likely, until the first set of paying customers wants to get invoiced for the investigation. But to claim it's FUD without any real data to back it up is just FUD^2. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Moving a pool from FreeBSD 8.0 to opensolaris
On 24 Dec 2009, at 10:33, Mattias Pantzare pant...@ludd.ltu.se wrote: On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 04:36, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote: An EFI label isn't OS specific formatting! It is. Not all OS will read an EFI label. You misunderstood the concept of OS specific, I feel. EFI is indeed OS independent; however, that doesn't necesssarily imply that all OSs can read EFI disks. My Commodore 128D could boot CP/M but couldn't understand FAT32 - that doesn't mean that therefore FAT32 isn't OS independent either. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Moving a pool from FreeBSD 8.0 to opensolaris
On 24 Dec 2009, at 21:27, Mattias Pantzare pant...@ludd.ltu.se wrote: An EFI label isn't OS specific formatting! It is. Not all OS will read an EFI label. You misunderstood the concept of OS specific, I feel. EFI is indeed OS independent; however, that doesn't necesssarily imply that all OSs can read EFI disks. My Commodore 128D could boot CP/M but couldn't understand FAT32 - that doesn't mean that therefore FAT32 isn't OS independent either. On a PC EFI is very OS specific as most OS on that platform does not support EFI. Still false, I'm afraid. There is nothing OS specific about EFI, regardless of whether any given OS supports EFI or not. Nor does it need to be a PC - I have several Mac PPCs that can read EFI partitioned disks (as well as some Intel ones). These can also be read by other systems that understand EFI partitioned disks. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] What can I get with 2x250Gb ?
If you want any kind of data guarantee, you need to go for a mirrored pool. If you don't want a data guarantee, you can create a single pool (non-mirrored) of the two devs which will give you 500Gb. The key is in the 'zpool create' command zpool create twofifty mirror disk1 disk2 zpool create fivehundred disk1 disk2 Alex On Nov 8, 2009, at 15:09, Wael Nasreddine (a.k.a eMxyzptlk) wrote: Hello, I'm sure this question has been asked many times already, but I couldn't find the answer myself. Anyway I have a laptop with 2 identical hard disks 250Gb each, I'm currently using Linux on RAID0 which gave me ~500Gb.. I'm planning to switch to FreeBSD but I want to know before I do, what can I get with these hard disks? do I get ~500Gb or less? can ZFS be setup to use RAIDz with only 2 hard disks ? Thank you -- Wael Nasreddine Weem Chief-Development Officer - http://www.weem.com Blog: http://wael.nasreddine.com E-mail : wael.nasredd...@weem.com gTalk : wael.nasredd...@gmail.com Tel : +33.6.32.94.70.13 Skype : eMxyzptlk Twitter : @eMxyzptlk PGP: 1024D/C8DD18A2 06F6 1622 4BC8 4CEB D724 DE12 5565 3945 C8DD 18A2 .: An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs, would never make a good program. (L. Torvalds 1995) :. ___ 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] Location of ZFS documentation (source)?
On 3 Nov 2009, at 14:48, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Alex, You can download the man page source files from this URL: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/man/downloads/current/ FYI there's a couple of nits in the man pages: * the zpool create synopsis hits the 80 char mark. Might be better to fit on several lines e.g. zpool create [-fn] [-o property=value] ... [-O file-system-property=value] ... [-m mountpoint] [-R root] pool vdev ... * same for the zpool import * There's a few bold open square brackets when there probably shouldn't be; zfs.1m:\fB[\fB-ug\fR] \fIeveryone\fR|\fIuser\fR|\fIgroup\fR[,...]\fR zfs.1m:\fB[\fB-e\fR] \fIperm\fR|@\fIsetname\fR[,...]\fR zfs.1m:\fB[\fB-ld\fR] \fIfilesystem\fR|\fIvolume\fR\fR zpool.1m:\fB[\fB-O\fR \fIfile-system-property=value\fR] ...\fR - zfs.1m:[\fB-ug\fR] \fIeveryone\fR|\fIuser\fR|\fIgroup\fR[,...]\fR zfs.1m:[\fB-e\fR] \fIperm\fR|@\fIsetname\fR[,...]\fR zfs.1m:[\fB-ld\fR] \fIfilesystem\fR|\fIvolume\fR\fR zpool.1m:[\fB-O\fR \fIfile-system-property=value\fR] ...\fR * zpool upgrade looks like it's an older message, zpool.1m:This system is currently running ZFS version 2. - # zpool upgrade -a This system is currently running ZFS pool version 8. All pools are formatted using this version. This is confusing, especially since ZFS filesystem version 2 is the default: # zfs upgrade This system is currently running ZFS filesystem version 2. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Location of ZFS documentation (source)?
The man pages documentation from the old Apple port (http://github.com/alblue/mac-zfs/tree/master/zfs_documentation/man8/) don't seem to have a corresponding source file in the onnv-gate repository (http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+onnv/WebHome) although I've found the text on-line (http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-2240/zfs-1m) Can anyone point me to where these are stored, so that we can update the documentation in the Apple fork? Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] automate zpool scrub
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Vano Beridze vanua...@gmail.com wrote: Now I've logged in and there was a mail saying that cron did not found zpool it's in my path which zpool /usr/sbin/spool Does cron use different PATH setting? Yes. Typically your PATH is set up by various shell initialisations which may not get run for Cron jobs. In any case, it's safer to assume it's not. Is it ok to specify /usr/sbin/zpool in crontab file? It is in fact preferable to specify fully qualified paths in crontabs generally, so yes. Alex ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Apple cans ZFS project
Apple has finally canned [1] the ZFS port [2]. To try and keep momentum up and continue to use the best filing system available, a group of fans have set up a continuation project and mailing list [3,4]. If anyone's interested in joining in to help, please join in the mailing list. [1] http://alblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/apple-finally-kill-off-zfs.html [2] http://zfs.macosforge.org [3] http://code.google.com/p/maczfs/ [4] http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-macos -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
