On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> additional comment below...
>
> Kyle Kakligian wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Blake wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> that link suggests that this is a problem with a dirty export:
>>>
>>
>> Yes, a loss of power should mean there was no clean
> "tt" == Toby Thain writes:
c> For writing, application-level checksums do NOT work at all,
c> because you would write corrupt data to the disk, and notice
c> only later when you read it back
tt> Right, it would have to be combined with an always read-back
tt> policy
On 5-Mar-09, at 2:03 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
"gm" == Gary Mills writes:
gm> There are many different components that could contribute to
gm> such errors.
yes of course.
gm> Since only the lower ZFS has data redundancy, only it can
gm> correct the error.
um, no?
...
For wri
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Blake wrote:
I had a 2008.11 machine crash while moving a 700gb file from one machine
to another using cp. I looked for an existing bug for this, but found
nothing.
Has anyone else seen behavior like this? I wanted to check before
filing a bug.
Have you got a copy of
I had a 2008.11 machine crash while moving a 700gb file from one
machine to another using cp. I looked for an existing bug for this,
but found nothing.
Has anyone else seen behavior like this? I wanted to check before filing a bug.
cheers,
Blake
___
z
> "gm" == Gary Mills writes:
gm> There are many different components that could contribute to
gm> such errors.
yes of course.
gm> Since only the lower ZFS has data redundancy, only it can
gm> correct the error.
um, no?
An example already pointed out: kerberized NFS will de
On 03/05/09 11:33, Richard Morris - Sun Microsystems - Burlington United
States wrote:
On 03/04/09 15:24, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Not too sure what this option needs as a value but the man page suggests
that the keywork "current" should work.
...
cannot create 'fibre00': bad numeric value 'current
Nathan Kroenert wrote:
Hm - a ZilArc??
Or, slarc?
Or L2ArZi
I'm tried something sort of similar to this when fooling around,
adding different *slices* for ZIL / L2ARC but as I'm too poor to
afford good SSD's my resolut was poor at beat... ;)
Perfectly predictable. zilstat will show you th
How I do recursive, selective snapshot destroys:
http://blog.clockworm.com/2008/03/remove-old-zfs-snapshots.html
>
> Saturday, February 28, 2009, 10:14:20 PM, you wrote:
>
> TW> I would really add : make insane zfs destroy <-r|> poolname as
> TW> harmless as zpool destroy poolname (recoverabl
On 03/04/09 15:24, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Not too sure what this option needs as a value but the man page suggests
that the keywork "current" should work.
...
cannot create 'fibre00': bad numeric value 'current'
The keyword current is not numeric and causes an issue. The zpool(1M)
manpage is not
So onnv_111 is no longer the target for crypto integration since that
build is supposed to be included in osol 2009.06?
Regards
Henrik
On 5 mar 2009, at 11.06, Darren J Moffat
wrote:
Luca Morettoni wrote:
A lot of people ask me about crypto layer over ZFS and the future
integration in
Henrik Johansson wrote:
So onnv_111 is no longer the target for crypto integration since that
build is supposed to be included in osol 2009.06?
onnv_111 wasn't the target of record the project page says build 115.
Given some design and codreview discussions we had last week on
interactions be
Wes Felter wrote:
slog and L2ARC on the same SSD
You can do that already today.
Create two slices using format(1M) and add the slices rather than the
whole disk as the L2ARC or slog device.
However IMO this is with current SSD techology probably the wrong thing
to do. The slog wants a ver
Luca Morettoni wrote:
A lot of people ask me about crypto layer over ZFS and the future
integration in OpenSolaris (I read around snv_111), it may be ready for
the next stable release (2009.06)?
See:
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/zfs-crypto/
No it won't be in 2009.06. To be in 2009.06 i
14 matches
Mail list logo
