Re: [zfs-discuss] Cifs and Solaris
Hi all, A bit confused now... Wasn't Samba an implementation of CIFS which also runs on Solaris? On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Zlotnick Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The in-kernel CIFS stack is not in Solaris 10 Update 5, and will never appear in any Solaris 10 update, because the kernel changes required are too invasive. You need OpenSolaris. -- Fred Fred, Correct me if I'm wrong, but just to clarify a bit for those currently thinking WHAT, NEVER IN MAINLINE!? It will make it back to mainline, but just not until the next solaris release (something other than 10updateX), correct? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations
Hi, I don't have a ZFS box handy right now, but perhaps Sun Explorer would generate something about ZFS/zpools which details the overall configs. Just a thought. On 3/21/08, Sachin Palav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Friends Can someone please let me know how I can backup the ZFS configuration which is stored on the operating system. Thanks Sachin Palav This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs comparison
On 1/17/08, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but is ZFS with compression safe to use in a production environment? Yes, why wouldn't it be ? If it wasn't safe it wouldn't have been delivered. Few reasons - http://prefetch.net/blog/index.php/2007/11/28/is-zfs-ready-for-primetime/ -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs comparison
On 1/19/08, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On what do you base that statement ? How do you see what enterprises are adopting ? State your sources please. Out of the many I work on only one's been keen on adopting it any time soon, another one's planning to look into it but doesn't see many benefits in it over VxSF (storage foundation). Main struggle for companies is migrating to ZFS from other solutions out there, and still keeping the functionality/processes/standards they need on regular basis (eg. data migrations, BCVs and backup strategies, remote replication, DR, and general uptime of their applications). People should not only see the enterprises which have adopted ZFS, there's plenty of them which haven't done so for various good/bad reasons. Partially due to their scale and complexity/worthiness of deploying something new cross company wide, which might not be necessarely a ZFS specific obstacle. -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs comparison
On 1/18/08, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simply FUD. I don't see many enterprises adopting ZFS even though it's been officially out for a while now. Looking over the mailing list and numbers of ZFS patches, it's enough to scare lots of people away. Don't get me wrong, I believe ZFS is a great product to have come out of Sun's software group, however I don't think it's matured enough to be relied upon with mission crititcal systems. ZFS is changing too fast to be considered stable in my opinion... I still see VxSF (for those who can afford it) being the defacto choice. -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs comparison
On 1/19/08, Paul Kraus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect that the amount of changes / discussion is no less for ZFS than for any new filesystem, just that due to the open source nature of it the discussions are in public view. The fact that the issues *are* being discussed is a huge advantage in my mind. At least we *know* that the issue are being recognized. I don't know how many times I have filed bug reports on various aspects of an OS and never get a good response that the issue has been recognized as such. I've always argued about Sun and their sheer amount of patches for any software they seem to release. It's a good/bad situation. On the bright side they are pro active in creating and releasing patches, even their IDR process is a good idea and very pro active of them. On the contrary you could look at it as if their software always ends up needing more and more patches no matter how many patches you end up applying, you're almost always out of date and vulnerable to potentially critical known/unknown issues. AIX doesn't seem to have lots of patches out there (nowhere as many as Solaris). One could argue that the software it self does not need to be patched after it's released. Then again you could argue vendor's not too proactive in chasing up patches and the userbase doesn't find many bugs to begin with... I guess both have to do with company's support strategy (in one way or another). VxFS did not have the performance we needed without lots of tuning, while ZFS did fine right out of the box. We had moved away from VxVM/VxFS years ago due to SLVM maturing and giving us the features we really needed, SLVM was easier to manage, and OS upgrades are *much* simpler with SLVM than with VxVM/VxFS. There was no real justification for the cost and more difficult management of VxVM/VxFS. For some background, I have been using both VxVM/VxFS and DiskSuite / SLVM since about 1996. VxSF is not a typo it seems to be. I was referring to Veritas Storage Foundation, not only VxFS. ZFS isn't only a filesystem hence should not be compared to only VxFS. We avoid using VxSF for OS volumes, use SVM for those instead because as you say it's easier and cleaner to maintain. VxSF overcomplicates simple environments, however it makes complex environments easier to manage. I'd not want to manage 100s of multipathed LUNs via SVM on a clustered system when VxSF is an option. I expect that UFS was not changing much because it had spent so many years changing already ;-) Seriously, I was seeing serious changes in SLVM/UFS up until about a year or two ago. I even ran into one of the issues created by fixing another issue with SLVM about a year ago. We are using ZFS in a couple 'production' roles, only one of which is critical, and we picked ZFS because no other FS we tested scaled the way we needed it to. Again ZFS and VxSF all fit differing purposes. I see ZFS trying to compete with VxSF, but not the other way around (at least not in techincal aspects). -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs comparison
On 1/19/08, Fred Zlotnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, of course, many other enterprise customers _have_ adopted ZFS, and are quite happy with it. For a list of ZFS reference customers please contact Solaris Marketing. ZFS is used in many mission critical roles today, and by and large our customers are thrilled with it. I'd wonder what the real word proportions are. I suspect marketing'd mainly know of the ones who did adopt it. -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS versus VxFS as file system inside Netbackup 6.0 DSSU
Veritas products tend to work best with... well... other Veritas products. On 1/11/08, Patrick Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello experts, We have a large implementation of Symantec Netbackup 6.0 with disk staging. Today, the customer is using VxFS as file system inside Netbackup 6.0 DSSU (disk staging). The customer would like to know if it is best to use ZFS or VxFS as file system inside Netbackup disk staging in order to get the best performance possible. Could you provide some information regarding this topic? Thanks in advance for your help Regards Patrick ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Bug: Value too large for defined data type
Hi, Not sure if it's the case here. However I've seen Value too large for defined data type errors on systems which had date (year) set incorrectly. On 1/7/08, Arne Schwabe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a strange problem with a zfs filesystem. zfs scrub stuff reports no errors. [16:50]charon:...kaputt/Crossroads# pwd /stuff/backups/kaputt/Crossroads [16:51]charon:...kaputt/Crossroads# ls 01 - Introspection (Crossroads by Mind.In.A.Box).flac [...] [16:51]charon:...kaputt/Crossroads# ls -l 01* 01 - Introspection (Crossroads by Mind.In.A.Box).flac: Value too large for defined data type [1]797 exit 2 ls -l 01* truss ls -l 01* [...] lstat64(01 - Introspection (Crossroads by Mind.In.A.Box).flac, 0x08046880) Err#79 EOVERFLOW rm 01* rm: 01 - Introspection (Crossroads by Mind.In.A.Box).flac: Value too large for defined data type [1]800 exit 2 rm 01* rm fails with the same error with syscall fstatat64. unlink 01* works and return no error. (I have still 700 + broken files left) Are there other things I can do debug/fix the problem? Additional data: uname -a SunOS charon 5.11 snv_77 i86pc i386 i86pc zpool status pool: stuff state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM stuff ONLINE 0 0 0 mirrorONLINE 0 0 0 c3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT stuff195G 261G22K /stuff stuff/backups172G 261G 137G /stuff/backups stuff/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 35.3G - 151G - stuff/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 25.0M - 134G - stuff/daten 17.0G 261G 17.0G /stuff/daten stuff/iscsi 5.94G 261G30K /stuff/iscsi stuff/iscsi/zeug5.94G 261G 5.94G - ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Help needed ZFS vs Veritas Comparison
On 12/29/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One good feature in VxVM/VxFS is an ability to shrink a pool or change RAID on-the-fly. Then you can change speed of resilvering or even freeze it if you want. Hot spare support is probably still better (I haven't looked at latest improvements in ZFS yes). We're not there yet. In addition to this, I believe that user generated IO takes precedence over the VxSF generated IOs during volume restructuring. -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Help needed ZFS vs Veritas Comparison
I believe it will work on systems wich have more than 2 cores, however only 2 would actually end up being used by VxSF 4 volumes is not a hard software limit from what I understand. It's important to note it will not come with any support, perhaps this is another point where ZFS rises above in terms of features? VxSF Basic sounds like good cost competition, until you realize it is limited to 4 data volumes and/or 4 filesystems and 2 or less CPU sockets. -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] /usr/bin and /usr/xpg4/bin differences
Hi, It's a different version in terms of the Unix standard it complies to: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5221/6mbcm38u8?l=ena=view On 12/16/07, KASTURI VENKATA SESHA SASIDHAR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am working on open solaris bugs .. and need to change the code of df in the above two folders.. I would like to know why there are two df's with diff options in the respective folders.. /usr/bin/df is different is from /usr/xpg4/bin/df!! Why is it so?? What is this xpg4 represent? Thanks, Sasidhar. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- _/ sengork.blogspot.com / ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
