I have only heard of alignment being discussed in reference to
block-based storage (like DASD/iSCSI/FC). I'm not really sure how it
would work out over NFS. I do see why you are asking though.
My understanding is that VMDK files are basically 'aligned' but the
partitions inside of them may
James Lever wrote:
Is there a way to upgrade my current ZFS version. I show the version could
be as high as 22.
The version of Solaris you are running only suport ZFS versions up to version
15 as demonstrated by your zfs upgrade -v output. You probably need a newer
version of Solaris,
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Tim Cook wrote:
If it is using parallel SCSI, perhaps there is a problem with the
SCSI bus termination or a bad cable?
SCSI? Try PATA ;)
Is that good? I don't recall ever selecting that option when
purchasing a computer. It seemed safer to
Roland Rambau wrote:
Richard, Tim,
yes, one might envision the X4275 as OpenStorage appliances, but
they are not. Exadata 2 is
- *all* Sun hardware
- *all* Oracle software (*)
and that combination is now an Oracle product: a database appliance.
Is there any reason the X4275 couldn't be an
creation.
Thanks for any input,
-Brian
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System Administrator Media and Academic Computing
bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu
Nobody can comment on this?
-Brian
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
I noticed this issue yesterday when I first started playing around with
zfs send/recv. This is on Solaris 10U6.
It seems that a zfs send of a zvol issues 'volblocksize' reads to the
physical devices. This doesn't make any sense
is interested in looking.
-Brian
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System Administrator Media and Academic Computing
bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System Administrator Media and Academic Computing
bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu
---
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
Jonathan Loran wrote:
David Evans wrote:
For anyone looking for a cheap home ZFS server...
Dell is having a sale on their PowerEdge SC440 for $199 (regular $598) through
11/12/2008.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_sc440?c=uscs=04l=ens=bsd
Its got Dual Core
Manyam wrote:
Hi ZFS gurus -- I have a v240 with solaris10 u2 release and ZFs - could
you please tell me if by applying the latest patch bundle of update 2 -- I
will get the all the ZFS patches installed as well ?
It is possible to patch your way up to the U5 kernel and related
Peter Hawkins wrote:
Can zpool on U3 be patched to V4? I've applied the latest cluster and it
still seems to be V3.
Yes, you can patch your way up to the Sol 10 U4 kernel (or even U5
kernel) which will give you zpool v4 support. The particular patch you
need is 120011-14 or 120012-14
Andrius wrote:
That is true, but
# kill -HUP `pgrep vold`
usage: kill [ [ -sig ] id ... | -l ]
I think you already did this as per a previous message:
# svcadm disable volfs
As such, vold isn't running. Re-enable the service and you should be fine.
-Brian
S10 U4 and U5 both use ZFS v4 (you specified your U4 machine as using v3).
If you have access to both machines, you can do 'zpool upgrade -v' to
confirm which versions are being used.
-Brian
Peter Hawkins wrote:
By the way I'm sure the pool was created using S10 Update 5
This message
Keith Bierman wrote:
Not being a lawyer, and this not being a Legal forum ... can we leave
license analysis alone?
The GNU _itself_ states that it is not allowable in plain English. Why
people continue to argue about it is beyond me :-)
Common Development and Distribution License
,
-Brian
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
Ok. I think I answered my own question. ZFS _didn't_ realize that the
disk was bad/stale. I power-cycled the failed drive (external) to see if
it would come back up and/or run diagnostics on it. As soon as I did
that, ZFS put the disk ONLINE and started using
?
This is a production machine and I'm getting concerned. I _really_ don't
like the fact that ZFS is using a suspect drive, but I can't seem to
make it stop!
Thanks,
-Brian
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
This is Solaris 10U3 w/127111-05.
It appears that one of the disks in my zpool died yesterday. I
?
Also, I noticed that the 'action' says to attach the device and 'zpool
online' it. Am I correct in assuming that a 'zpool replace' is what
would really be needed, as the data on the disk will be outdated?
Thanks,
-Brian
--
---
Brian H. Nelson
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System Administrator Media and Academic Computing
bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu
---
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
Windsor wrote:
Yeah, the only thing wrong with that patch is that it eats
/etc/sma/snmp/snmpd.conf
All is not lost, your original is copied to
/etc/sma/snmp/snmpd.conf.save in the process.
Rob++
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
Manually installing the obsolete patch 122660-10 has worked fine
://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Cache_Flushes
-Brian
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System Administrator Media and Academic Computing
bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu
Stephen Usher wrote:
Brian H. Nelson:
I'm sure it would be interesting for those on the list if you could
outline the gotchas so that the rest of us don't have to re-invent the
wheel... or at least not fall down the pitfalls.
I believe I ran into one or both of these bugs:
6429996
are not using the z_pool_ for anything else, I would remove the
automatic mount point for it.
-Brian
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System Administrator Media and Academic Computing
bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu
Stephen Usher wrote:
Brian H. Nelson:
I'm sure it would be interesting for those on the list if you could
outline the gotchas so that the rest of us don't have to re-invent the
wheel... or at least not fall down the pitfalls.
Also, here's a link to the ufs on zvol blog where I
, snapshots, growable pool, etc) with no
changes in userland.
There are a couple gotcha's but as long as you're aware of them, it
works pretty good. We've been using it since January.
-Brian
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
Can anyone comment?
-Brian
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:01:28PM -0400, Brian H. Nelson wrote:
Why does this happen? Is it a bug? I know there is a recommendation of
20% free space for good performance, but that thought never occurred to
me when
to the underlining zfs if only zvols are used? That would be really
unfortunate. I think most people wanting to use a zvol would want to use
100% of a pool toward the zvol.
-Brian
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System
.
Thanks much!
-Brian
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System Administrator Media and Academic Computing
bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
For several reasons we currently need to stay on UFS and can't switch
to ZFS proper. So instead we have opted to do UFS on a zvol using
raid-z,
Can you state what those reasons are please ?
I know that isn't answering the question you
that they are a
one to one replacement for ufs quotas in terms of usability in all
situations.
-Brian
--
---
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System Administrator Media and Academic Computing
bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu
29 matches
Mail list logo
