> I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal
> with SVM/SDS again.
Why?
SVM has really come a long way. It's integrated into Solaris by default and
very reliable. I can't count the number of times SVM has saved me, not to
mention increased I/O performance if configured correctly.
This
> It's a bit of work to set up, and it's not supported.
> x86 only for now.
> You still need a UFS slice somewhere to hold the boot
> archive. But it does work; my 2 x 2 GHz amd box
> boots
> w/ zfs root.
>
> Once grub groks zfs, the need for the slice will go
> away.
You mean you have a UFS /bo
> Well I can tell you that I am still sitting on the
> fence here.
>
> Its not an uncomfortable position either.
>
> On the one hand I can just install Solaris 10 Update
> 1 and create the
> fielsystem that I need with SVM and life goes on.
> Apply power and
> then walk away.
>
> On the other h
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:21:35AM -0800, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> One hopes that his actions are logical, but they're not all programmatic.
Many are, though. At present, since we're teamware based, the following
happens:
- gateling does a putback
- putback sends a message to a handful
Thanks, Darren. You have a second(s). Eric will get you set up.
Jim
Darren J Moffat wrote:
OpenSolaris has the lofi(7d) driver that allows you to use a file
in a filesystem as a block device.
Over in the Security Community you will see some info that some of
us have created some crypto suppor
Linda Bernal wrote:
Jim Grisanzio wrote On 03/07/06 17:42,:
Here is an update on OpenSolaris for the month of February:
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/content/newsletter/feb06/
We are accepting contributions for the March newsletter, please send
them to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to
Jim Grisanzio wrote On 03/07/06 17:42,:
Linda Bernal wrote:
Here is an update on OpenSolaris for the month of February:
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/content/newsletter/feb06/
We are accepting contributions for the March newsletter, please send
them to [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Danek Duvall wrote:
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 02:40:39PM -0700, Sanjay Nadkarni wrote:
I will back this up from the request sponser POV. In my case an RPE engineer
had already fixed the bug and putback into Nevada. However we don't require
people to update the "fixed" in bugster.
People have
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 03:06:46PM -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 02:40:39PM -0700, Sanjay Nadkarni wrote:
>
> > I will back this up from the request sponser POV. In my case an RPE
> > engineer
> > had already fixed the bug and putback into Nevada. However we don't
> > r
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 02:40:39PM -0700, Sanjay Nadkarni wrote:
> I will back this up from the request sponser POV. In my case an RPE engineer
> had already fixed the bug and putback into Nevada. However we don't require
> people to update the "fixed" in bugster.
People have suggested that w
On 3/8/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you set pidmax, then the system will turn off jumppid, as you can't
> jump past the maximum.
I removed the pidmax setting and the WARNING is gone :
Executing last command: boot -r
Boot device: /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL
On 3/8/06, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke writes:
> > I am not to sure what to make of the WARNING message :
> >
> > WARNING: jump_pid < 0 or >= pidmax; ignored
>
> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/uts/common/conf/param.c#675
>
> > but I can only assum
Dennis Clarke writes:
> I am not to sure what to make of the WARNING message :
>
> WARNING: jump_pid < 0 or >= pidmax; ignored
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/uts/common/conf/param.c#675
> but I can only assume that setting pidmax = 32767 was a bad thing.
It's mostly harml
James Dickens wrote:
On 3/8/06, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bill Bradford wrote:
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
not true...
6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
just putback on friday.
On 3/8/06, Cyril Plisko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > As a comparison I tried the same thing on an unmodified Red Hat
> > Enterprise Linux 4 AS 64-bit server. It simply packed up and went
> > away. Totally. Gone in less than one second and nothing worked
> > anymore. Not the mouse and not
On 3/8/06, Jonathan Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:30:47PM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote:
> > Bill Bradford wrote:
> > >I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
> >
> > not true..
On 3/8/06, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Bradford wrote:
> > I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
> >
> > Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
>
> not true...
> 6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
> just putback on friday.
> --
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:30:47PM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote:
> Bill Bradford wrote:
> >I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
> >
> >Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
>
> not true...
> 6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
> just putback on fri
Bill Bradford wrote:
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
not true...
6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
just putback on friday.
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
>
> As a comparison I tried the same thing on an unmodified Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux 4 AS 64-bit server. It simply packed up and went
> away. Totally. Gone in less than one second and nothing worked
> anymore. Not the mouse and not even the NumLock light on the
> keyboard. I don't like playn
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
Bill
On 3/8/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the one hand I can just install Solaris 10 Update 1 and create the
> fielsystem that I need with SVM and life
[ This is a long long message but worth reading .. I hope ]
James Dickens posted an interesting topic in his blog :
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2006/03/defusing-bombs.html
Thus I just had to run the famous bash fork bomb on my new build 35
based server.
Needless to say the machine became rea
On 3/8/06, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> On the one hand I can just install Solaris 10 Update 1 and create the
> fielsystem that I need with SVM and life goes on. Apply power and
> then walk away.
>
> On the other hand I can sit and wait a litt
On Wed 08 Mar 2006 at 10:49AM, Karyn Ritter wrote:
> I'll figure out where to put the definitions. This the real status that
> is in Bugster, so we need to document it anyway
So, I wonder if we could use Perl's WWW::Mechanize [1] or something
equivalent to automate the updating of pages. The
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On the one hand I can just install Solaris 10 Update 1 and create the
fielsystem that I need with SVM and life goes on. Apply power and
then walk away.
On the other hand I can sit and wait a little while for the build 36
codedrop. then I accept the risks
On 3/8/06, Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UNIX admin wrote:
> >> Build 36 has a big wad of ZFS changes including many
> >> performance
> >> fixes, FMA support, error handling, etc.
> >>
> >> Many of us have been running ZFS in "production" for
> >> quite a
> >> while; the work in build
I'll figure out where to put the definitions. This the real status that
is in Bugster, so we need to document it anyway
Thanks,
Karyn
Bill Rushmore wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Karyn Ritter wrote:
Would something like the table I've just created at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/bug_repo
UNIX admin wrote:
Build 36 has a big wad of ZFS changes including many
performance
fixes, FMA support, error handling, etc.
Many of us have been running ZFS in "production" for
quite a
while; the work in build 36 is a big step forward.
Yeah but the question is, will these be backported into
th
Darren J Moffat wrote:
OpenSolaris has the lofi(7d) driver that allows you to use a file
in a filesystem as a block device.
Over in the Security Community you will see some info that some of
us have created some crypto support for lofi(7d), though we have
been slack on posting the code. Belenix
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Karyn Ritter wrote:
> Would something like the table I've just created at
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/bug_reports/oss_bite_size/ help? I need to
> work out the answers to many additional questions surrounding this table
> -- the least of which is how often I can reasonabl
* Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-08 04:32]:
> OpenSolaris has the lofi(7d) driver that allows you to use a file
> in a filesystem as a block device.
>
> Over in the Security Community you will see some info that some of
> us have created some crypto support for lofi(7d), though we ha
[Apologies if this has already been responded to... I'm catching up.]
The code for bugs.opensolaris.org (and bugs.sun.com) are not
sophisticated enough to be able to do this. The application we use
currently shares the same code base as bugs.sun.com. Because Suggested
Fix often contains code t
Bill,
Bill Rushmore wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
* For those who are thinking about contributing code, what can we do to
help you get started? Would more oss-bite-size bugs help?
More oss-bite-size would be nice. I also have a couple of suggestions for
the bug list.
From: Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:51:37 +0100
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-March/013917.html).
I read that email before I replied, it was quoted in the email
you originally CC:'d me on.
sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE) should return the cor
OpenSolaris has the lofi(7d) driver that allows you to use a file
in a filesystem as a block device.
Over in the Security Community you will see some info that some of
us have created some crypto support for lofi(7d), though we have
been slack on posting the code. Belenix has compression support
UNIX admin wrote:
Depends on your definition of soon when it comes to
the crypto
support. There is no funded and agreed on roadmap
yet even though
the project exists in opensolaris.org land.
If there is one essential feature that ZFS currently lacks, I believe that
feature would be encryption
> Build 36 has a big wad of ZFS changes including many
> performance
> fixes, FMA support, error handling, etc.
>
> Many of us have been running ZFS in "production" for
> quite a
> while; the work in build 36 is a big step forward.
Yeah but the question is, will these be backported into the first
> Depends on your definition of soon when it comes to
> the crypto
> support. There is no funded and agreed on roadmap
> yet even though
> the project exists in opensolaris.org land.
If there is one essential feature that ZFS currently lacks, I believe that
feature would be encryption.
This mess
> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/too
> ls/scripts/wx.sh
>
> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/too
> ls/scripts/wx.1
I haven't seen such nice pieces of SHELL scripting code in years (I'm
surrounded by one "expert" next to the other -- don't ask.)
This message
> As nobody's mentioned it in this thread... 'wx'
> takes care of most of
> the automatic checks, and can (must) be run by ON
> developers before
> putting the changes from their gates back into the
> main gate. It
> checks for things like cstyle compliance, workspace
> cleanliness, and
> copy
40 matches
Mail list logo
