> Thanks Darren, but the snapshot taken at 4 would be the snapshot on
> the storage and not on the host
I'm not sure what the difference is. I was discussing this in the
context of ZFS, so all the snapshots I meant were ZFS/host snapshots.
> so the storage system wouldnt really
> have to bother
This is an old topic, discussed many times at length. However, I
still wonder if there are any workarounds to this issue except
disabling ZIL, since it makes ZFS over NFS almost unusable (it's a
whole magnitude slower). My understanding is that the ball is in the
hands of NFS due to ZFS's
arb wrote:
> Hello, I'm new to OpenSolaris and ZFS so my apologies if my questions are
> naive!
>
> I've got solaris express (b52) and a zfs mirror, but this command locks up my
> box within 5 seconds:
> % cmp first_4GB_file second_4GB_file
>
>
You are 6 months out of date, start by upgrading
On 10/6/07 5:23, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/07 10:01, "Eric Schrock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 01:56:35PM -0700, Ed Ravin wrote:
I encountered the problem in NetBSD's scandir(), when reading off
a Solaris NFS fileser
>On 9/6/07 10:01, "Eric Schrock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 01:56:35PM -0700, Ed Ravin wrote:
>>>
>>> I encountered the problem in NetBSD's scandir(), when reading off
>>> a Solaris NFS fileserver with ZFS filesystems. I've already filed a
>>> bug report with NetBSD.
Hello -
I think L4 still needs to evolve. BTW, i believe microkernels is the
_right_ way and L4 is a first step in that direction.
Perhaps you could elaborate on this? I thought the microkernel debate ended
in the 1990s, in terms of being a compelling technology direction for kernel
developmen
Will this fix ever be integrated in Solaris 10 ?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hello, I'm new to OpenSolaris and ZFS so my apologies if my questions are naive!
I've got solaris express (b52) and a zfs mirror, but this command locks up my
box within 5 seconds:
% cmp first_4GB_file second_4GB_file
It's not just these two 4GB files, any serious work in the filesystem (but I
On 9/6/07 10:01, "Eric Schrock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 01:56:35PM -0700, Ed Ravin wrote:
>>
>> I encountered the problem in NetBSD's scandir(), when reading off
>> a Solaris NFS fileserver with ZFS filesystems. I've already filed a
>> bug report with NetBSD. They w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 10:16:34PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh, I see, this is bug 6479267: st_size (struct stat) is unreliable in
> >> >ZFS. Any word on when the fix will be out?
> >>
> >> It's a bug in scandir (obviously) and it is filed as such
>On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 10:16:34PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, I see, this is bug 6479267: st_size (struct stat) is unreliable in
>> >ZFS. Any word on when the fix will be out?
>>
>> It's a bug in scandir (obviously) and it is filed as such.
>>
>> Does scandir fail on zfs becau
What are this issues preventing the root directory being stored on raidz? I'm
talking specifically about root, and not boot which I can see would be
difficult.
Would it be something an amateur programmer could address in a weekend, or is
it more involved?
This message posted from opensolari
>What was the reason to make ZFS use directory sizes as the number of
>entries rather than the way other Unix filesystems use it? I fear that
>several more of the 700 open source packages we've ported to our hosts
>are going to exhibit this problem.
It's a choice as good as any.
The scandir imp
Jeff Bonwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What was the reason to make ZFS use directory sizes as the number of
> > entries rather than the way other Unix filesystems use it?
>
> In UFS, the st_size is the size of the directory inode as though it
> were a file. The only reason it's like that is
14 matches
Mail list logo
