Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?

On 08/16/10 10:38 PM, George Wilson wrote: Robert Hartzell wrote: On 08/16/10 07:47 PM, George Wilson wrote: The root filesystem on the root pool is set to 'canmount=noauto' so you need to manually mount it first using 'zfs mount '. Then run 'zfs mount -a'. - George mounting the dataset fai

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

On 17.08.10 04:17, Will Murnane wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 21:58, Kishore Kumar Pusukuri wrote: Hi, I am surprised with the performances of some 64-bit multi-threaded applications on my AMD Opteron machine. For most of the applications, the performance of 32-bit version is almost same as t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek wrote: > I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read > them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic > yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples: > > (1) http://www.phoron

Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?

Robert Hartzell wrote: On 08/16/10 07:47 PM, George Wilson wrote: The root filesystem on the root pool is set to 'canmount=noauto' so you need to manually mount it first using 'zfs mount '. Then run 'zfs mount -a'. - George mounting the dataset failed because the /mnt dir was not empty and "

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On Sunday 15 August 2010 11:56:22 Joerg Moellenkamp wrote: > And by the way: Wasn't there a > comment of Linus Torvals recently that people shound move their > low-quality code into the codebase ??? ;) Yeah, those codes should be put into the "staging" part of the codebase, so that (more) peo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: > >> No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will >> re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage. >> > > You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linu

Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?

On 08/16/10 07:47 PM, George Wilson wrote: The root filesystem on the root pool is set to 'canmount=noauto' so you need to manually mount it first using 'zfs mount '. Then run 'zfs mount -a'. - George mounting the dataset failed because the /mnt dir was not empty and "zfs mount -a" failed I

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage. You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux? ___ zfs-discuss maili

Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?

On 08/16/10 07:39 PM, Mark Musante wrote: On 16 Aug 2010, at 22:30, Robert Hartzell wrote: cd /mnt ; ls bertha export var ls bertha boot etc where is the rest of the file systems and data? By default, root filesystems are not mounted. Try doing a "zfs mount bertha/ROOT/snv_134" This didn

Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?

The root filesystem on the root pool is set to 'canmount=noauto' so you need to manually mount it first using 'zfs mount '. Then run 'zfs mount -a'. - George On 08/16/10 07:30 PM, Robert Hartzell wrote: I have a disk which is 1/2 of a boot disk mirror from a failed system that I would like

Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?

On 16 Aug 2010, at 22:30, Robert Hartzell wrote: > > cd /mnt ; ls > bertha export var > ls bertha > boot etc > > where is the rest of the file systems and data? By default, root filesystems are not mounted. Try doing a "zfs mount bertha/ROOT/snv_134"__

[zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?

I have a disk which is 1/2 of a boot disk mirror from a failed system that I would like to extract some data from. So i install the disk to a test system and do: zpool import -R /mnt -f rpool bertha which gives me: bertha102G 126G84K /mnt/bertha bertha/ROOT

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 21:58, Kishore Kumar Pusukuri wrote: > Hi, > I am surprised with the performances of some 64-bit multi-threaded > applications on my AMD Opteron machine. For most of the applications, the > performance of 32-bit version is almost same as the performance of 64-bit > versi

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

It can be as simple as impact on the cache. 64-bit programs tend to be bigger, and so they have a worse effect on the i-cache. Unless your program does something that can inherently benefit from 64-bit registers, or can take advantage of the richer instruction set that is available to amd64 progr

[zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

Hi, I am surprised with the performances of some 64-bit multi-threaded applications on my AMD Opteron machine. For most of the applications, the performance of 32-bit version is almost same as the performance of 64-bit version. However, for a couple of applications, 32-bit versions provide bette

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't retrospectively change the license on already released code but they can pu

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > > > Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we > > can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned > > the copyright to s

Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HTPC

On 8/16/2010 3:57 PM, Russ Price wrote: On 08/16/2010 10:35 AM, Freddie Cash wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote: What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over $1,000

Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HTPC

On 8/16/2010 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote: What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over $1,000 dollars, for what. Well... Part of it is positioning. Most RAID controllers are targeted at t

[zfs-discuss] Narrow escape with FAULTED disks

Nothing like a "heart in mouth moment" to shave tears from your life. I rebooted a snv_132 box in perfect heath, and it came back up with two FAULTED disks in the same vdisk group. Everything an hour on Google I found basically said "your data is gone". All 45Tb of it. A postmortem of fmadm sh

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 2010-Aug-17 07:13:07 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Miles Nordin >> >>1 /* >>2 * Copyright (C) 2008 Red Hat. All rights reserved. > >Holy crap. That's three different results.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 2010-Aug-17 06:07:52 +0800, Miles Nordin wrote: >However, if you were using ZFS along with things like infiniband >iSER/SRP/NFS-RDMA, zones, 10gig nics with cpu-affinity-optimized TCP, >xen dom0, virtualbox, dtrace, or waiting/hoping for pNFS, or if you >foolishly became addicted to proprietary

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Miles Nordin > >1 /* >2 * Copyright (C) 2008 Red Hat. All rights reserved. Holy crap. That's three different results. One said oracle, one said red hat, and one said FSF. So I wen

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> > see, that's good, and is a realistic future scenario for ZFS, AFAICT: > there can be a branch that's safe to collaborate on, which cannot go > into Solaris 11 and cannot be taken proprietary by Nexenta, either. In fact, we are in the process of creating a non-profit foundation for Illumos w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we > can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned > the copyright to some other party. BTRFS is inside the linux kernel. Copyright (C)

Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HTPC

On 08/16/2010 10:35 AM, Freddie Cash wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote: What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over $1,000 dollars, for what. Because they includ

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet > > However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they > must > release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL. When a copyright holder releases someth

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

dd> 2 * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle. All rights reserved. dd> 3 * dd> 4 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or dd> 5 * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public dd> 6 * License v2 as published by the Free Software Foundation. dd>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> "pj" == Peter Jeremy writes: > "gd" == Garrett D'Amore writes: > "cb" == C Bergström writes: > "fc" == Frank Cusack writes: > "tc" == Tim Cook writes: pj> Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to pj> see why Oracle would continue to invest in b

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > > I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start to > > write > > to the disk when gtar finished. > > As a test of ext? performance, that does seem to be lacking something! > > I guess it's a consequence of the low sound levels of modern disk dr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 15:35, Joerg Schilling wrote: > I know of ext* performance checks where people did run gtar to unpack a > linux > kernel archive and these people did nothing but metering the wall clock > time > for gtar. > > I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Andrej Podzimek wrote: > P. S. As far as Phoronix is concerned... Well, I remember how they once used > a malfunctioning and crippled Reiser4 implementation (hacked by the people > around the ZEN patchset so that it caused data corruption (!) and kernel > crashes) and "compared" it to other fi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Well, a typical conversation about speed and stability usually boils down to this: A: I've heard that XYZ is unstable and slow. B: Are you sure? Have you tested XYZ? What are your benchmark results? Have you had any issues? A: No. I *have* *not* *tested* XYZ. I think XYZ is so unstable and slow t

Re: [zfs-discuss] JET and ZFS ?

I don't know much about JET, but a jumpstart install of a system with a zfs root will do the necessary disk formatting. The profile keywords that describe the disk layout work more or less the same for zfs as they do for ufs, subject to the ways that zfs is different from ufs (you don't nee

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook wrote: > insults. Oracle can pull the plug at any time they choose. *ONE* developer > from Redhat does not change the fact that Oracle owns the rights to the > majority of the code, and can relicense it, or discontinue code updates, as > they see fit. It would be most unlikely that Or

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 12:36, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we > can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned > the copyright to some other party. 2 * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle. All rights reserved. 3 * 4

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Sat, August 14, 2010 16:26, Andrej Podzimek wrote: > Well, a typical conversation about speed and stability usually boils down > to this: > > A: I've heard that XYZ is unstable and slow. > B: Are you sure? Have you tested XYZ? What are your benchmark results? > Have you had any issues? > A: No

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they must release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL. This claim would only be true in case that Oracle does not own the copyright on its' code... Can someone provide a link t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Sun, August 15, 2010 09:19, David Magda wrote: > On Aug 14, 2010, at 14:54, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >> From: Russ Price > >> >>> For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of >>> being prohibitively expensive. >> >> I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. $400/yr doe

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Peter Jeremy wrote: Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't retrospectively change the license on already released code but they can put a different (non-OSS) license on any

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16 at 11:15, Tim Cook wrote: Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he was a part of for five years. IANAL, but as my discussions with employment lawyers in my state have explained

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16 at 8:52, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> >> 2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > codest...@osunix.org>> >> >> >>Joerg Schilling wrote: >> >>"C. Bergström" >> wrote: >> >> >>I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

"I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta before Oracle's cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my decision. " Us too. :) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@op

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook wrote: 2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > Joerg Schilling wrote: "C. Bergström" mailto:codest...@osunix.org>> wrote: I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook wrote: > > The real question is, WHY would they do it? What would be the business > > motivation here? Chris Mason would most likely leave Oracle, Red Hat > > would hire him and fork the last GPL'd version of btrfs and Oracle > > would have relegated itself to a non-player in the Linux

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:15:12AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that > states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he > was a part of for five years. > > The "business motivation" would be to set the competition back

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent. Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the Solaris code quality. I think code quality has nothing to do with open-sourcing

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

The problem is: The first time the a software release is considered stable, it takes significant time for the uptake and the moment it's really stable. ZFS was introduced almost 5 years ago to the public and just now it gets mayor uptake in the field. I still don't get it, why brtfs should be

[zfs-discuss] Zpool import hangs, disk label issues

Hi, I am having trouble with a 8 disk raidz2 pool. Last week I noticed any commands that were accessing the pool's filesystems would hang (ls, df etc...). The logs showed some read errors for two of the drives. I had to power cycle the machine since I could not shut it down cleanly. After reb

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Peter, Thanks for the suggestions, I'm getting closer to solving the problem. it definitely works when using anon setting. I can read / write to the filesystem all day long. But as you mentioned using anon is a bad idea and a security risk. Something I get my hand slapped with keeping this in tha

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Peter, Ah!!! that my problem, thanks for the tip. i agree and did not explicidly export to allow that host for rw. Phillip From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:21 PM To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) Cc: zfs-di

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Peter, what would you expect for root? That is the user I am at. Like I already stated it is NOT a UID or GUID issue. Both systems are the same. Phillip From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:23 PM To: zfs-discu

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

On 8/14/10 11:49 , Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) wrote: Peter, what would you expect for root? That is the user I am at. root is default mapped to annon, if you don't specifically export it with the option to allow root on one or more clients to be mapped to local root on the server. zfs se

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Hi Phillip, What's the permissions on the directory where you try to write to, and what user are you using on the client system, it's most likely a UID mapping issue between the client and the server. /peter On 8/14/10 3:19 , Phillip Bruce wrote: I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS f

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Cindy, I will agree with NFS statement. No this is not a tmp or lofs mount. I am very clear on what it is. This is a ZFS filesystem being exported. This was mounted as root and needs to be. Standard permission applied. Tested as root. No other permission needs to be checked. But since you Broug

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Cindy, I forgot to post the server NFS config. # zpool status pool: nfs state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM nfs ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t60060E8004A

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Cindy, I appreciate your help. Understand the NFS server is Solaris 10 The Client is Solaris 9 Here what I see on the client system: # mount -o rw server1:/nfs /nfs/backup # cd /nfs/backup # touch me touch: me cannot create # showmount -e server1 export list for server1: /nfs (everyone) # nfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Cindy, UID/GID on both are the same. Do not want to use aumounter at this point. Need to get it working first. Besides mounting the filesystem Is not the issue. The issue is writing to it. Phillip -Original Message- From: Cindy Swearingen [mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com] Sent: Fr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "C. Bergström" wrote: > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > dual-licensed > > > > BTRFS. > > > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 11:01, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > >> >> As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements. >> > >> > No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as >> they >> > own the code. >> >> Ray's point is, how long

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > Joerg Schilling wrote: > >> "C. Bergström" wrote: >> >> >> >>> I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS. >>> No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much >>> already to be available under anything

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:08:52AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "C. Bergström" wrote: > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed > > > > BTRFS. > > > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depen

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "C. Bergström" wrote: > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed > > > BTRFS. > > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much > > already to be available under anything,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:58:20AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > Why would they obviously want that? When the project started, they > were competing with Sun. They now own Solaris; they no longer have a > need to produce a competing product. I would be EXTREMELY surprised > to see Oracle continue to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > >> As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements. > > > > No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they > > own the code. > > Ray's point is, how long would BTRFS remain in the Linux kernel in that case? Such a licens

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Joerg Schilling wrote: "C. Bergström" wrote: I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS. No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much already to be available under anything, but GPLv2 If he really believes this, then he

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > > > > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"C. Bergström" wrote: > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed > > BTRFS. > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much > already to be available under anything, but GPLv2 If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed abou

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > >> >> On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: >> >> > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to >> release >> > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can'

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > > No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no > > longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That > > is not true. Anyone ELSE who uses the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:48, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > >> > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has >> > dual-licensed BTRFS. >> >> Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux >> kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux > > kernel rather than die a death of a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux > kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it... > > As such, they'll need to continue to comply with

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet > wrote: On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bug

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote: > > On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release > > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't > > retrospectively change the license on already released code

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no > longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That > is not true. Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release > modifications if they wish to distribute

Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HTPC

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote: > What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost > more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over > $1,000 dollars, for what. Because they include a motherboard and processor. :) The hi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release > > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't > > retrospectively change the l

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:54:13PM -0700, Erast wrote: > > On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ > > > >I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't > >get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the f

Re: [zfs-discuss] Replaced pool device shows up in zpool status

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Mark J Musante wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Matthias Appel wrote: > >> Can anybody tell me how to get rid of c1t3d0 and heal my zpool? > > Can you do a "zpool detach performance c1t3d0/o"?  If that works, then > "zpool replace performance c1t3d0 c1t0d0" should re

[zfs-discuss] JET and ZFS ?

With JET, you can specify a ZFS install by selecting the disk slice to install the rpool onto (or "any" to let the install choose a disk). But this appears to assume that the disk is already formatted. Or does it? It looks like if you specify "any" that it may or may not format the drive for y

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't > retrospectively change the license on already released code but they > can put a different (non-OSS

Re: [zfs-discuss] EMC migration and zfs

In general, ZFS can handle importing a pool from devices with different paths. This has been true for many years. On Aug 12, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote: > We are going to be migrating to a new EMC frame using Open Replicator. I have no idea what Open Replicator is. Perhaps nobody el

Re: [zfs-discuss] Replaced pool device shows up in zpool status

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Matthias Appel wrote: Can anybody tell me how to get rid of c1t3d0 and heal my zpool? Can you do a "zpool detach performance c1t3d0/o"? If that works, then "zpool replace performance c1t3d0 c1t0d0" should replace the bad disk with the new hot spare. Once the resilver c

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool and filesystem version list, OpenSolaris builds list

I keep the pool version information up-to-date here: http://blogs.sun.com/mmusante/entry/a_zfs_taxonomy On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Haudy Kazemi wrote: Hello, This is a consolidated list of ZFS pool and filesystem versions, along with the builds and systems they are found in. It is based on multip

Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HTPC

What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over $1,000 dollars, for what. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why > Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more > mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort > to ZFS and leave btrfs to die.

Re: [zfs-discuss] EMC migration and zfs

Bump this up. Anyone? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, August 16, 2010 09:06, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS, > and CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on. So ZFS > steps on a lot of linux peoples' toes. They already have code to do this, > or that, wh

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:06 AM, "Edward Ned Harvey" wrote: > ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS, and > CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on. So ZFS steps > on a lot of linux peoples' toes. They already have code to do this, or that,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Sun, August 15, 2010 21:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why > Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more > mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort > to ZFS and leave btrfs to die.

[zfs-discuss] Replaced pool device shows up in zpool status

Hi all, yesterday I had to remove a zpool device due to controller errors (I tried to replace the harddisk, but checksum errors occured again) so I connected a fresh harddisk to another controller port. Now I have the problem that zpool status looks as following: r...@storage:~# zpool status

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:17 PM > > (The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden > license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the > Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Sol

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool and filesystem version list, OpenSolaris builds list

Haudy Kazemi wrote: > EON (Embedded ON) NAS (Network Attached Storage) > EON ver 0.60.0 is based on build 130 > EON ver 0.59.9 is based on build 129 > EON ver 0.59.5 is based on build 125 > EON ver 0.59.4 is based on build 124 > EON ver 0.59.3 is based on build 122 > EON ver 0.59.2 is based on bu

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

"Garrett D'Amore" wrote: > (The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden > license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the > Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Solaris kernel. I There is only a need for a mind change at the Linux

Re: [zfs-discuss] Help! Dedup delete FS advice needed!!

On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Marc Emmerson wrote: > Hi Victor, > I just woke up and checked my server and the delete operation has completed, > however I ran your command anyway and here is the output: If all is well, then requested information is no longer relevant ;-) victor > > m...@serv

Re: [zfs-discuss] Help! Dedup delete FS advice needed!!

Tim, thanks, you were right, it looks like the destroy completed in about an hour or so after the additional memory was added. Much appreciated, Marc -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org ht

Re: [zfs-discuss] Help! Dedup delete FS advice needed!!

Hi Victor, I just woke up and checked my server and the delete operation has completed, however I ran your command anyway and here is the output: m...@server:~$ echo "::arc" | pfexec mdb -k hits = 352207629 misses= 2291912 demand_data_hits =

  1   2   >