In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Brian Sebby writes:
>sure to turn off atime on the ZFS pool as well as changing the block size
wouldnt turning off atime on namei filesystems be a good idea in general?
i dont think the fileserver uses this for anything. i suppose this should
be in the adminguide so
This seems to have been discussed quite a bit already, but we also moved
our fileservers from inode to namei on ZFS in Solaris. Fortunately, this
was part of a hardware upgrade, so all I had to do was set up the new
file servers using ZFS, and use vos move to move over the volumes. Once
it was do
Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, that makes me feel better about changing defaults, although we
probably need to keep providing inode packages as well, so it would
probably mean two builds for Solaris.
Or we should be providing a single package that includes both binaries
and permits the correct one
Jason Edgecombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It does error out. A namei fileserver will refuse to start and log an
> error message if a vice partition used to be inode. This happens even if
> you run "rm -fr *". I had to run mkfs/newfs on my vice partitions in
> order to switch formats -- after m
Jason Edgecombe wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Robert Banz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think it's generally a good idea to stick with one server
implementation on all platforms since that way everyone runs the same
(tested) code, but I
Russ Allbery wrote:
Robert Banz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think it's generally a good idea to stick with one server
implementation on all platforms since that way everyone runs the same
(tested) code, but I seem to recall the mig
Robert Banz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think it's generally a good idea to stick with one server
>> implementation on all platforms since that way everyone runs the same
>> (tested) code, but I seem to recall the migration from inode to name
On Apr 21, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Robert Banz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, the issue was if you're using it on a server, and using what
a lot
of people still consider the default (the inode fileserver),
apocalyptic
dataloss may occur.
Oh, right, I completely forgot a
Russ Allbery wrote:
I would say that in addition to recommending people use logging with ufs
(or better, zfs!), that we should also push for deprecation of the inode
fileserver ;)
I think it's generally a good idea to stick with one server implementation
on all platforms since that way everyone
Robert Banz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, the issue was if you're using it on a server, and using what a lot
> of people still consider the default (the inode fileserver), apocalyptic
> dataloss may occur.
Oh, right, I completely forgot about that.
> I would say that in addition to recomme
On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
"Prasun Gupta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On solaris the recommended filesystem of use for building afs
filesystem
is ufs without logging turned on.
Where is this? We should update it. That's the recommendation for a
*cache* file system
"Prasun Gupta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On solaris the recommended filesystem of use for building afs filesystem
> is ufs without logging turned on.
Where is this? We should update it. That's the recommendation for a
*cache* file system, but not for the server.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PR
At my last job, we had switched to using ZFS exclusively for our AFS
servers, and had great luck with it. Look back in the archives of this
list for discussion of it, and check out one of my ex-coworker's
presentations from the 2007 AFS workshop on just that subject:
http://elektronkind.o
On solaris the recommended filesystem of use for building afs filesystem
is ufs without logging turned on. This is really a very primitive file
system, and it loses a lot of the new features in the filesystems.
Has anybody used zfs successfully and in what configuration ?
a) striped zfs
14 matches
Mail list logo
