[zfs-discuss] Oops: zpool detach from degraded mirror "only applicable to mirror ..

Hi all, especially Matthias, I am very sorry for having bothered you with this stupid question, I am embarrassed by the fact that I did not realize it's not a mirror. The fact that I named it "rmirror" definitely added confusion on my side. Apologies in particular for not having taken Mathias' in

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > Paul B. Henson wrote: >> >> Are the libsec undocumented interfaces likely to remain the same when the >> acl_t structure changes? They will still require adding the prototypes to >> my code so the compiler knows what to make of them, but less chance of >> breakage is good.

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > >> The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future. > [...] >> of the ACL, but they aren't documented interfaces, such as acl_data() >> which will return you the pointer to the array of ace_t's and acl_

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Joe Blount wrote: > >>> Is the acl_t intentionally designed to be opaque? >>> >> >> Yes, its meant to be opaque. >> >> The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future. >> > > Will old versions be supported? For example, if ADM >

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Paul B. Henson wrote: > Ah, thanks for the pointer. Reviewing the libsec code, I see there is also > acl_type() Looks like the acl_type_t enum isn't in the public headers either though. But presumably that's not likely to change... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | h

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future. [...] > of the ACL, but they aren't documented interfaces, such as acl_data() > which will return you the pointer to the array of ace_t's and acl_cnt() > that will return you th

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Is the acl_t intentionally designed to be opaque? Yes, its meant to be opaque. The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future. Will old versions be supported?  For example, if ADM treats it as opaque and archives the current format, after an u

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Paul B. Henson wrote: > I asked a while back if there was any utility function to evaluate a ZFS > ACL, I didn't get much of a response and was unable to find anything, so > decided to implement my own C code. > > It appears the acl_get() function is a convenient way to read the ACL; > however, I

[zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

I asked a while back if there was any utility function to evaluate a ZFS ACL, I didn't get much of a response and was unable to find anything, so decided to implement my own C code. It appears the acl_get() function is a convenient way to read the ACL; however, I don't see an efficient way to par

Re: [zfs-discuss] Moving a ZFS root to another target

Hmm... Just tried the same thing on SXCE build 95 and it works fine. Strange. Anyone know what's up with OpenSolaris (the distro)? I'm using the ISO of OpenSolaris 208.11 snv_93 image-updated to build 95 if that makes a difference. I've not tried this on 2008.05 . Thanks Andrew. This messa

[zfs-discuss] Moving a ZFS root to another target

I've got an OpenSolaris system rooted on a SCSI disk at /dev/dsk/c4t1d0s0. I would like to reconfigure my VM so that this is on c4t0d0s0. Unfortunately OpenSolaris panics on boot when I do this. It seems that vfs_mountroot is trying to mount the root pool at its old device path (/[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool detach from degraded mirror : why "only applicable to mirror ..

On Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 00:05:17 CEST, Nils Goroll wrote: > Matthias, > > that does not answer my question. > > The question is: Why can't I decide that I consciously want to destroy the > (two way) > mirror (and, yes, do away with any redundancy). > Hi, this pool does not have any re

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool detach from degraded mirror : why "only applicable to mirror ..

Matthias, that does not answer my question. The question is: Why can't I decide that I consciously want to destroy the (two way) mirror (and, yes, do away with any redundancy). Nils This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool detach from degraded mirror : why "only applicable to mirror ..." ?

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 02:14:02PM -0700, Eric Schrock wrote: > The fact that it's DEGRADED and not FAULTED indicates that it thinks the > DTL (dirty time logs) for the two sides of the mirrors overlap in some > way, so detaching it would result in loss of data. In the process of > doing this, it

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool detach from degraded mirror : why "only applicable to mirror ..." ?

The fact that it's DEGRADED and not FAULTED indicates that it thinks the DTL (dirty time logs) for the two sides of the mirrors overlap in some way, so detaching it would result in loss of data. In the process of doing this, it seems the error message got lost, and you ended up with something comp

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool detach from degraded mirror : why "only applicable to mirror ..." ?

2008/8/15 Nils Goroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > I thought that this question must have been answered already, but I have > not found any explanations. I'm sorry in advance if this is redundant, but: > > Why exactly doesn't ZFS let me detach a device from a degraded mirror? > > haggis:~# zpool

[zfs-discuss] zpool detach from degraded mirror : why "only applicable to mirror ..." ?

Hi, I thought that this question must have been answered already, but I have not found any explanations. I'm sorry in advance if this is redundant, but: Why exactly doesn't ZFS let me detach a device from a degraded mirror? haggis:~# zpool status pool: rmirror state: DEGRADED status: One or

Re: [zfs-discuss] FW: Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 hang when drive removed

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:07:31AM -0500, Tim wrote: > You could always try FreeBSD :) > > > Unfortunately for me, Windows doesn't support ZFS... right now it's > > looking a whole load more stable. Nope: FreeBSD doesn't have proper power management either. florin -- Bruce Schneier expects the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Jumpstart + ZFS boot: profile?

I'm not sure why you want to separate out all these filesystems on a root disk these days? The reason I recall needing to do it over a decade ago, was because disks were so small and perhaps you couldn't FIT /opt onto the same disk with /usr. So you needed to be able to say /usr is on this dis

Re: [zfs-discuss] GUI support for ZFS root?

> 0n Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:12AM -0700, Rich > Teer wrote: > >Summary: Solaris Express Community Edition > (SXCE) is like the OpenSolaris > >of old; OpenSolaris .xx is apparently Sun's > intended future direction > >for Solaris. Based on what I've heard, I've not > tried the latter.

Re: [zfs-discuss] FW: Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 hang when drive removed

Oh god no, I'm already learning three new operating systems, now is not a good time to add a fourth. Ross<-- Windows admin now working with Ubuntu, OpenSolaris and ESX Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:07:31 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [zfs-discuss] FW: Supermicro AOC-S

Re: [zfs-discuss] FW: Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 hang when drive removed

You could always try FreeBSD :) --Tim On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Haven't a clue, but I've just gotten around to installing windows on this > box to test and I can confirm that hot plug works just fine in windows. > > Drives appear and dissappear in device

Re: [zfs-discuss] FW: Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 hang when drive removed

Haven't a clue, but I've just gotten around to installing windows on this box to test and I can confirm that hot plug works just fine in windows. Drives appear and dissappear in device manager the second I unplug the hardware. Any drive, either controller. So far I've done a couple of dozen r

Re: [zfs-discuss] GUI support for ZFS root?

0n Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:12AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote: >Summary: Solaris Express Community Edition (SXCE) is like the OpenSolaris >of old; OpenSolaris .xx is apparently Sun's intended future direction >for Solaris. Based on what I've heard, I've not tried the latter. If

Re: [zfs-discuss] corrupt zfs stream? checksum mismatch

Hi Richard, Thanks for the detailed reply, and the work behind the scenes filing the CRs. I've bookmarked both, and will keep a keen eye on them for status changes. As Miles put it, I'll have to put these dumps into storage for possible future use. I do dearly hope that I'll be able to recover m

Re: [zfs-discuss] GUI support for ZFS root?

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Ross wrote: > > > Huh? Now I'm confused, I thought b95 was just the latest build of > > OpenSolaris, I didn't realise that OpenSolaris 2008.05 was different, I > > thought it was just an older, more stabl

Re: [zfs-discuss] installing OpenSolaris not easy-how does someone simply upgrade snv94 t

Hi, uname -a SunOS ns1a 5.11 snv_94 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-280R sol-nv-B94-sparc-dvd.iso The upgrade I tried was called osol-0811-95.iso but that would not allow to do anything. # df / (/dev/dsk/c1t0d0s0 ):50209260 blocks 3689703 files /devices (/devices