Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

>I went hunting for more apps in the hundreds of ports installed at my >shop to see what our exposure was to the scandir() problem - much to >my surpise out of 700 or so ports, only a dozen or so used the libc >scandir(). A handful of mail programs had a vulnerable local >implementation of scandi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

> >>I went hunting for more apps in the hundreds of ports installed at my >>shop to see what our exposure was to the scandir() problem - much to >>my surpise out of 700 or so ports, only a dozen or so used the libc >>scandir(). A handful of mail programs had a vulnerable local >>implementation of

[zfs-discuss] Mac OS X.5 "Leopard": zfs works; sudo kextload /System/Library/zfs.kext

I know it's a pain, but you have to spend money to download Apple's betas, that is, pay their developer fee. If, however, this might inspire you to do this, you should know that zfs will run (read and write) on the latest build of Leopard, as Apple has (somewhat cryptically) said. Apple also h

Re: [zfs-discuss] Moving files over with ufsrestore not that simple

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> After one aborted ufsrestore followed by some cleanup I tried >> to restore again but this time ufsrestore faultered with: >> >> bad filesystem block size 2560 >> >> The reason was this return value for the stat of "." of the >> filesystem: >> >> 8339: stat(".", 0

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs and 2530 jbod

On June 13, 2007 7:51:21 PM -0500 Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It seems wasteful to (determine the required part number and) order a 2530 JBOD "expansion" shelf and then return it if it does not work out It's a 2501 I think. Obviously this is a huge hole in Suns' current storage p

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

On June 13, 2007 11:26:07 PM -0400 Ed Ravin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:42:26PM -0400, Ed Ravin wrote: As mentioned before, NetBSD's scandir(3) implementation was one. The NetBSD project has fixed this in their CVS. OpenBSD and FreeBSD's scandir() looks like another,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

>On June 13, 2007 11:26:07 PM -0400 Ed Ravin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:42:26PM -0400, Ed Ravin wrote: >>> As mentioned before, NetBSD's scandir(3) implementation was one. The >>> NetBSD project has fixed this in their CVS. OpenBSD and FreeBSD's >>> scandir() looks

[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS API (again!), need quotactl(7I)

Issue with statvfs() # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT mypool 108M 868M 26.5K /mypool mypool/home108M 868M 27.5K /mypool/home mypool/home/user-2 108M 868M 108M /mypool/home/user-2 # df -h Filesystem size us

[zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

Intending to experiment with ZFS, I have been struggling with what should be a simple download routine. Sun Download Manager leaves a great deal to be desired. In the Online Help for Sun Download Manager there's a section on troubleshooting, but if it causes *anyone* this much trouble

[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS wastesd diskspace?

Thanks, here is some more info # zpool status pool: nm4 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM nm4ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t600C0FF007D22D2E

[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS wastesd diskspace?

Oh yeah I'm running Solaris 10 >uname -a SunOS jet 5.10 Generic_118855-36 i86pc i386 i86pc /Samuel This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-dis

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

Graham Perrin wrote: > Intending to experiment with ZFS, I have been struggling with what > should be a simple download routine. > > Sun Download Manager leaves a great deal to be desired. > > In the Online Help for Sun Download Manager there's a section on > troubleshooting, but if it causes *anyo

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

On 14/6/07 11:16, "Graham Perrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Intending to experiment with ZFS, I have been struggling with what > should be a simple download routine. > > Sun Download Manager leaves a great deal to be desired. > > In the Online Help for Sun Download Manager there's a section o

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On June 13, 2007 11:26:07 PM -0400 Ed Ravin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:42:26PM -0400, Ed Ravin wrote: > >> As mentioned before, NetBSD's scandir(3) implementation was one. The > >> NetBSD project has fixed this in their CVS.

[zfs-discuss] Re: OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download

> Intending to experiment with ZFS, I have been > struggling with what > should be a simple download routine. > > Sun Download Manager leaves a great deal to be > desired. > > In the Online Help for Sun Download Manager there's a > section on > troubleshooting, but if it causes *anyone* this

[zfs-discuss] ZFS ditto 'mirroring' on JAOBOD ? Please, pretty please!

Strikes me that at the moment Sun/ZFS team is missing a great opportunity. Imagine Joe bloggs has a historical machine with Just Any Old Bunch Of Discs... (it's not me, no really). He doesn't want to have to think too hard about pairing them up in mirrors or in raids - and sometimes they die or

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X.5 "Leopard": zfs works; sudo kextload /System/Library/zfs.kext

Hi, On 14.6.2007, at 9:15, G.W. wrote: If someone knows how to modify Extensions.kextcache and Extensions.mkext, please let me know. After the bugs are worked out, Leopard should be a pretty good platform. You can recreate the kext cache like this: kextcache -k /System/Library/Extensions

[zfs-discuss] ZFS Boot manual setup in b65

> > Now that I know *what*, could you perhaps explain > to my *why*? I understood zpool import and export > operations much as mount and unmount, like maybe some > checks on the integrity of the pool and updates to > some structure on the OS to maintain the > imported/exported state of that pool. B

[zfs-discuss] Can you create a degraded raidz vdev?

I have 6 400GB discs and want to make two RAIDZ 2/1 vdevs out of them (ie 2stripe 1parity). The problem is that 4 are in use... so I want to do something like: zpool create datadump raidz c1t0d0 c1t1d0 missing Then move and bunch of data into datadump, to free up another two discs, then zp

[zfs-discuss] different filesystem size after raidz creation

Hi, after creation of a raidz2 pool with # zpool create -f mypool raidz2 c1t1d0 c1t2d0 c1t3d0 c1t4d0 c1t5d0 the commands zpool list and df showing different sizes for the created fs # zpool list NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT mypool 340G

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ditto 'mirroring' on JAOBOD ? Please, pretty please!

A bunch of disks of different sizes will make it a problem. I wanted to post that idea to the mailing list before, but didn't do so, since it doesn't make too much sense. Say you have two disks, one 50GB and one 100GB, part of your data can only be ditto'd within the upper 50GB of the larger disk.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ditto 'mirroring' on JAOBOD ? Please, pretty please!

On 6/14/07, Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What Joe really wants to say to ZFS is: "Here is a bunch of discs. Use them any way you like - but I'm setting 'copies=2' or 'stripes=5' and 'parity=2' so you just go allocating space on any of these discs trying to make sure I always have re

[zfs-discuss] Importing pool from readonly device? (as in ZFS fun!)

Trying some funky experiments, based on hearing about this readonly ZFS in MacOSX, I'm kidding around with creating file based pools and then burning them to a CDROM. When running zpool import, it does find the pool on the CD, but then warns about a read-only device, followed by a core dump. [EMAI

Re: [zfs-discuss] Importing pool from readonly device? (as in ZFS fun!)

Hi Mario, On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 15:23 -0100, Mario Goebbels wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/LargeFiles > zpool import -o readonly testpool > internal error: Read-only file system > Abort (core dumped) > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/LargeFiles > Interesting, I've just filed 6569720 for this behaviour - thank

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can you create a degraded raidz vdev?

On 6/14/07, Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is this currently possible? You may be able to do this my specifying a sparse file for the last device, and then immediately issuing a "zpool offline" of it after the pool is created. It seems to work, and I was able to create a pool that w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Importing pool from readonly device? (as in ZFS fun!)

> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/LargeFiles > zpool import -o readonly testpool > > internal error: Read-only file system > > Abort (core dumped) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/LargeFiles > > > Interesting, I've just filed 6569720 for this behaviour - thanks for > spotting this! Regardless of whether ZFS suppor

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

Graham Perrin wrote: Intending to experiment with ZFS, I have been struggling with what should be a simple download routine. Sun Download Manager leaves a great deal to be desired. In the Online Help for Sun Download Manager there's a section on troubleshooting, but if it causes *anyone* this

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Boot manual setup in b65

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:17:36AM -0700, Douglas Atique wrote: > > Do you think this panic when the root pool is not visible is a bug? > Should I file one? > No. There is nothing else the OS can do when it cannot mount the root filesystem. That being said, it should have a nicer message (using

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

more background below... Richard Elling wrote: Graham Perrin wrote: Intending to experiment with ZFS, I have been struggling with what should be a simple download routine. Sun Download Manager leaves a great deal to be desired. In the Online Help for Sun Download Manager there's a section on

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

People, indeed, even though interesting and a problem, this is OT. I suggest that everyone who has trouble with SDM address it to the people who actually work on it - especially if you're a (potential) customer. cheers Michael Richard Elling wrote: more background below... Richard Elling w

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

On Jun 14, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Michael Schuster wrote: People, indeed, even though interesting and a problem, this is OT. I suggest that everyone who has trouble with SDM address it to the people who actually work on it - especially if you're a (potential) customer. Michael, for the sake

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

John Martinez wrote: On Jun 14, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Michael Schuster wrote: People, indeed, even though interesting and a problem, this is OT. I suggest that everyone who has trouble with SDM address it to the people who actually work on it - especially if you're a (potential) customer. Mic

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

replying to myself ... Michael Schuster wrote: look at http://www.sun.com/download/sdm/index.xml, and would suggest you use the 'contact' link (bottom left). I realise it's probably very un-SDM-specific ... HTH http://www.sun.com/download/sdm/sdm_help.xml has a feedback form at the very bo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download

On 14 Jun 2007, at 12:22, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: I wonder if you're all that interested in the first place. I'm definitely interested but at Sun shout (with an exclamation mark) Use the Sun Download Manager (SDM) for all your SDLC downloads!

[zfs-discuss] OT: SDM - thanks, taking it off-list now

On 14 Jun 2007, at 16:58, Michael Schuster wrote: People, indeed, even though interesting and a problem, this is OT. I suggest that everyone who has trouble with SDM address it to the people who actually work on it - especially if you're a (potential) customer. cheers Michael Thanks t

Re: [zfs-discuss] different filesystem size after raidz creation

zpool shows space of all underlying disks - so a 5 x 100gb raidz2 would show as 500gb. However, only 300gb is usable from filesystem perspective, so zfs list and df will consider this a 300gb volume. On 6/14/07, Ronny Kopischke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, after creation of a raidz2 pool with

Re: [zfs-discuss] different filesystem size after raidz creation

See: 6308817 discrepancy between zfs and zpool space accounting - Eric On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:22:35PM +0200, Ronny Kopischke wrote: > Hi, > > after creation of a raidz2 pool with > > # zpool create -f mypool raidz2 c1t1d0 c1t2d0 c1t3d0 c1t4d0 c1t5d0 > > the commands zpool list and df show

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS API (again!), need quotactl(7I)

Pretorious wrote: Issue with statvfs() # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT mypool 108M 868M 26.5K /mypool mypool/home108M 868M 27.5K /mypool/home mypool/home/user-2 108M 868M 108M /mypool/home/user-2 # df -h Filesystem

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can you create a degraded raidz vdev?

Chris Csanady wrote: On 6/14/07, Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is this currently possible? You may be able to do this my specifying a sparse file for the last device, and then immediately issuing a "zpool offline" of it after the pool is created. It seems to work, and I was able t

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download Manager

On June 14, 2007 11:16:00 AM +0100 Graham Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If it can't assuredly be fixed, then we should not be forced to use it. You're not forced to use it. I use wget just fine. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@ope

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ditto 'mirroring' on JAOBOD ? Please, pretty please!

Paul Hedderly wrote: Now I can do that at the moment - well the copies/ditto kind anyway - but if I lose or remove one of the discs, zfs will not start the zpool. [i]That sucks!!![/i] Agreed, that is a bug (perhaps related to 6540322). --matt ___ zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ditto 'mirroring' on JAOBOD ? Please, pretty please!

Paul Hedderly wrote: Strikes me that at the moment Sun/ZFS team is missing a great opportunity. Imagine Joe bloggs has a historical machine with Just Any Old Bunch Of Discs... (it's not me, no really). He doesn't want to have to think too hard about pairing them up in mirrors or in raids - an

[zfs-discuss] ZFS Panics

I have a problem with one of my zfs pools everytime I import it I get the error below. I can not destroy it because it will not allow me to import. I have tried trashing the cache file but did not help, is there a way to destory the config then i can start over??? Also up to date on patches,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can you create a degraded raidz vdev?

Hi Paul, I think I have a smiliar problem, I have 4 disks, two empty, two full and want to create a RAIDZ1 from these disk. But I'm new to zfs, maybe you can explain me how do you done it, if it runs :) Thanks in advance :) Greetings Cyron > I have 6 400GB discs and want to make two RAIDZ 2/1

[zfs-discuss] Can not export ZFS pool

Is there a way to get past this I can not re-create until I export it? zpool export -f zonesHA2 cannot iterate filesystems: I/O error zpool status pool: zonesHA2 state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data corruption. Applications may be affec

[zfs-discuss] found the links - got myself a Solaris DVD :D

OK, I *finally* noticed the direct download links that appear between the two Sun Download Manager buttons. I can't believe I overlooked them so often. (Over-focused on the problems with SDM!) I now have my install DVD, I'll probably take my first look at Solaris this weekend, and ZFS some

[zfs-discuss] Best use of 4 drives?

I'm putting together a NexentaOS (b65)-based server that has 4 500 GB drives on it. Currently it has two, set up as a ZFS mirror. I'm able to boot Nexenta from it, and it seems to work ok. But, as I've learned, the mirror is not properly redundant, and so I can't just have a drive fail (when I p

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The implication of which, of course, is that any app build for Solaris 9 > or before which uses scandir may have picked up a broken one. or any app which includes its own copy of the BSD scandir code, possibly under a different name, be

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best use of 4 drives?

Hi Rick, what do you think about this configuration: Part all disks like this 7GiB 493GiB Make a RAIDz1 out of the 493GiB partitions and a RAID5 out of the 7GiB partitions. Create a swap, and the root in the RAID5, the dirs with the user data in the ZFS storage. Backup the / daily to the ZFS :)

[zfs-discuss] Btrfs, COW for Linux [somewhat OT]

Hello, Somewhat off topic, but it seems that someone released a COW file system for Linux (currently in 'alpha'): * Extent based file storage (2^64 max file size) * Space efficient packing of small files * Space efficient indexed directories * Dynamic inode all

[zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?

> Hi Rick, > > what do you think about this configuration: > > Part all disks like this > 7GiB > 493GiB > > Make a RAIDz1 out of the 493GiB partitions and a > RAID5 out of the 7GiB > partitions. Create a swap, and the root in the RAID5, > the dirs with the > user data in the ZFS storage. > > Ba

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The implication of which, of course, is that any app build for Solaris 9 > > or before which uses scandir may have picked up a broken one. > > or any app which includes its own copy of the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Root raidz without boot

Matthew Ahrens wrote: Ross Newell wrote: 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 invo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Btrfs, COW for Linux [somewhat OT]

it's about time. this hopefully won't spark another license debate, etc... ZFS may never get into linux officially, but there's no reason a lot of the same features and ideologies can't make it into a linux-approved-with-no-arguments filesystem... as a more SOHO user i like ZFS mainly for it's CO

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS and Tar/Star Performance

On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Siegfried Nikolaivich wrote: On 12-Jun-07, at 9:02 AM, eric kustarz wrote: Comparing a ZFS pool made out of a single disk to a single UFS filesystem would be a fair comparison. What does your storage look like? The storage looks like: NAMESTA

Re: [zfs-discuss] Btrfs, COW for Linux [somewhat OT]

On June 14, 2007 3:57:55 PM -0700 mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: as a more SOHO user i like ZFS mainly for it's COW and integrity, and huh. As a SOHO user, why do you care about COW? -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org h

Re: [zfs-discuss] Btrfs, COW for Linux [somewhat OT]

because i don't want bitrot to destroy the thousands of pictures and memories i keep? i keep important personal documents, etc. filesystem corruption is not a feature to me. perhaps i spoke incorrectly but i consider COW to be one of the reasons a filesystem can keep itself in check, the disk writ

Re: [zfs-discuss] Btrfs, COW for Linux [somewhat OT]

On June 14, 2007 4:40:18 PM -0700 mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: because i don't want bitrot to destroy the thousands of pictures and memories i keep? COW doesn't stop that. i keep important personal documents, etc. filesystem corruption is not a feature to me. perhaps i spoke incorrectly bu

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best use of 4 drives?

Rick Mann wrote: > > BTW, I don't mind if the boot drive fails, because it will be fairly easy to > replace, and this server is only mission-critical to me and my friends. > > So...suggestions? What's a good way to utilize the power and glory of ZFS in > a 4x 500 GB system, without unnecessary wa

Re: [zfs-discuss] Btrfs, COW for Linux [somewhat OT]

On 6/14/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, but there are many ways to get transactions, e.g. journalling. ext3 is journaled. it doesn't seem to always be able to recover data. it also takes forever to fsck. i thought COW might alleviate some of the fsck needs... it just seems like

[zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?

Ian Collins wrote: > Bung in (add a USB one if you don't have space) a small boot drive and > use all the others for for ZFS. Not a bad idea; I'll have to see where I can put one. But, I thought I read somewhere that one can't use ZFS for swap. Or maybe I read this: "Slices should only be used

Re: [zfs-discuss] Btrfs, COW for Linux [somewhat OT]

On June 14, 2007 5:07:39 PM -0700 mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/14/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, but there are many ways to get transactions, e.g. journalling. ext3 is journaled. it doesn't seem to always be able to recover data. zfs is COW. it isn't always able to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best use of 4 drives?

> Rick Mann wrote: > > > > BTW, I don't mind if the boot drive fails, because it will be fairly easy > > to replace, and this server is only mission-critical to me and my friends. > > > > So...suggestions? What's a good way to utilize the power and glory of ZFS > > in a 4x 500 GB system, without

Re: [zfs-discuss] Btrfs, COW for Linux [somewhat OT]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 17:19:18 -0700, Frank Cusack wrote: : anyway, my point is that i didn't think COW was in and of itself a feature : a home or SOHO user would really care about. it's more an implementation : detail of zfs than a feature. i'm sure this is arguable. I'm really not sure I ag

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best use of 4 drives?

Ian Collins wrote: Rick Mann wrote: BTW, I don't mind if the boot drive fails, because it will be fairly easy to replace, and this server is only mission-critical to me and my friends. So...suggestions? What's a good way to utilize the power and glory of ZFS in a 4x 500 GB system, without unn

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best use of 4 drives?

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 17:45 -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote: > This is how I run my home server w/ 4 500GB drives - a small > 40GB IDE drive provides root & swap/dump device, the 4 500 GB > drives are RAIDZ & contain all the data. I ran out of drive > bays, so I used one of those 5 1/4" -> 3.5" adapt

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?

Rick Mann wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: > > >> Bung in (add a USB one if you don't have space) a small boot drive and >> use all the others for for ZFS. >> > > Not a bad idea; I'll have to see where I can put one. > > But, I thought I read somewhere that one can't use ZFS for swap. Or maybe I

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?

Ian Collins wrote: Rick Mann wrote: Ian Collins wrote: Bung in (add a USB one if you don't have space) a small boot drive and use all the others for for ZFS. Not a bad idea; I'll have to see where I can put one. But, I thought I read somewhere that one can't use ZFS for swap. Or mayb

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?

Bart Smaalders wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: >> Rick Mann wrote: >>> Ian Collins wrote: >>> >>> Bung in (add a USB one if you don't have space) a small boot drive and use all the others for for ZFS. >>> Not a bad idea; I'll have to see where I can put one. >>> >>> But, I thought

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:27:15AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The implication of which, of course, is that any app build for Solaris 9 > > > or before which uses scandir may have

[zfs-discuss] Re: OT: extremely poor experience with Sun Download

> Intending to experiment with ZFS, I have been > struggling with what > should be a simple download routine. > > Sun Download Manager leaves a great deal to be > desired. > > In the Online Help for Sun Download Manager there's a > section on > troubleshooting, but if it causes *anyone* this

Re: [zfs-discuss] fchmod(2) returns ENOSPC on ZFS

Matthew Ahrens wrote: In a COW filesystem such as ZFS, it will sometimes be necessary to return ENOSPC in cases such as chmod(2) which previously did not. This is because there could be a snapshot, so "overwriting" some information actually requires a net increase in space used. That said, w

Re: [zfs-discuss] fchmod(2) returns ENOSPC on ZFS

Manoj Joseph wrote: Matthew Ahrens wrote: In a COW filesystem such as ZFS, it will sometimes be necessary to return ENOSPC in cases such as chmod(2) which previously did not. This is because there could be a snapshot, so "overwriting" some information actually requires a net increase in space