Paul B. Henson wrote:
> But all quotas were set in a single flat text file. Anytime you added a new
> quota, you needed to turn off quotas, then turn them back on, and quota
> enforcement was disabled while it recalculated space utilization.
I believe in later versions of the OS 'quota resize' di
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
>
>> This can be solved using an automounter as well.
>
> Well, I'd say more "kludged around" than "solved" ;), but again unless
> you've used DFS it might not seem tha
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> One issue I have is that our previous filesystem, DFS, completely spoiled
> me with its global namespace and location transparency. We had three fairly
> large servers, with the content evenly dispersed among them, but from the
> perspective of the client any user's files w
Richard Elling wrote:
> I think this is a systems engineering problem, not just a ZFS problem.
> Few have bothered to look at mount performance in the past because
> most systems have only a few mounted file systems[1]. Since ZFS does
> file system quotas instead of user quotas, now we have the si
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
> IMO, the quota-per-file-system approach seems inconvenient when you get
> past a handful of file systems. Unless I'm really missing something, it
> just seems like a nightmare to have to deal with such a ridiculous
> number of file systems.
Seconded -- is there any chance
Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello James,
>
> Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 3:20:14 PM, you wrote:
>
> JFH> Since we're talking about various hardware configs, does anyone know
> JFH> which controllers with battery backup are supported on Solaris? If
> JFH> we build a big ZFS box I'd like to be able
Since we're talking about various hardware configs, does anyone know
which controllers with battery backup are supported on Solaris? If
we build a big ZFS box I'd like to be able to turn on write caching
on the drives but have them battery-backed in the event of a power
loss. Are 3ware cards going
Anton B. Rang wrote:
> The ZIL is a necessary part of ZFS. Just because the ZFS file structure will
> be consistent after a system crash even with the ZIL disabled does not mean
> that disabling it is safe!
Is there a list of battery-backed RAID controllers supported by Solaris x86
somewhere? Doe
Eric Schrock wrote:
> Hmmm, it means that we correctly noticed that the device had failed, but
> for whatever reason the ZFS FMA agent didn't correctly replace the
> drive. I am cleaning up the hot spare behavior as we speak so I will
> try to reproduce this.
Ok, great.
>> Well, as long as I kn
Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 02:08:57PM -0500, James F. Hranicky wrote:
>> Sure, but that's what I want to avoid. The FMA agent should do this by
>> itself, but it's not, so I guess I'm just wondering why, or if there's
>> a good way to ge
Jim Davis wrote:
>> Have you tried using the automounter as suggested by the linux faq?:
>> http://nfs.sourceforge.net/#section_b
>
> Yes. On our undergrad timesharing system (~1300 logins) we actually hit
> that limit with a standard automounting scheme. So now we make static
> mounts of the N
Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 07:53:32AM -0800, Jim Hranicky wrote:
>> - I know I can attach it via the zpool commands, but is there a way to
>> kickstart the attachment process if it fails to attach automatically upon
>> disk failure?
>
> Yep. Just do a 'zpool replace zmir '. T
[ Sorry, this bounced the first time so I subscribed to the list ]
Sanjeev Bagewadi wrote:
>Jim,
>>
>We did hit similar issue yesterday on build 50 and build 45 although the
>node did not hang.
>In one of the cases we saw that the hot spare was not of the same
>size... can you check
>if this true
13 matches
Mail list logo
