e few bytes that happen to sit there. Is this a bug, a
misunderstanding or a terrible case of RTFM?
Another irrirating observation was, that scrubbing starts, then stalls for a
minute or so at 0.4 something percent and then continues.
Any ideas / pointers / ... ?
Jens
---
bash-3.2# zpool
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:25:57PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
...
> I agree with the above, but the best practices guide:
>
> http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#ZFS_file_service_for_SMB_.28CIFS.29_or_SAMBA
>
> states in the SAMBA section that "Beware that mo
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 09:34:28AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> We have a 2006 Sun X4500 with Hitachi 500G disk drives. Its been running for
> over four years and just now fmadm & zpool reports a disk has failed. No
> data was lost (RAIDZ2 + hot spares worked as expected.) But, the server is
> out of
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 09:16:56PM -0700, Ken wrote:
>I'm looking at VMWare, ESXi 4, but I'll take any advice offered.
...
>I'm looking to build a virtualized web hosting server environment accessing
>files on a hybrid storage SAN. I was looking at using the Sun X-Fire x4540
>with
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 05:05:41PM +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> Linder, Doug wrote:
> >Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering
> >- how does ZFS make money for Oracle when they don't charge for it? Do
> >you think it's such an important feature that it's a big
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:59:16PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Paul B. Henson wrote:
>
> > However, I went to create a new boot environment to install the patches
> > into, and so far that's been running for about an hour and a half :(,
> > which was not expected or planned
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 04:05:15PM -0700, Grant Lowe wrote:
> I've got a 240z with Solaris 10 Update 7, all the latest patches from
> Sunsolve. I've installed a boot drive with ZFS. I mirrored the drive with
> zpool. I installed the boot block. The system had been working just fine.
> But f
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 02:37:35PM -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Damjan Perenic
...
> I shopped for 1TB 7200rpm drives recently and I noticed Seagate
> Barracude ES.2 has 1TB version with SATA and SAS interface.
>
>On the flip side, according to storag
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:20:23AM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
>
> We're currently using the Sun bundled Samba to provide CIFS access to our
> ZFS user/group directories.
...
> Evidently the samba engineering group is in Prague. I don't know if it is a
> language problem, or where the confusion i
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:59:37PM -0600, Drew Balfour wrote:
...
> For Opensolaris, Solaris CIFS != samba. Solaris now has a native in kernel
> CIFS server which has nothing to do with samba. Apart from having it's
> commands start with "smb", which can be confusing.
>
> http://www.opensolaris.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 05:35:16PM +0200, dick hoogendijk wrote:
> Any known issues for the new ZFS on solaris 10 update 8?
> Or is it still wiser to wait doing a zpool upgrade? Because older ABE's
> can no longer be accessed then.
Rebooting with command: boot
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 07:36:04PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
>
> I used live upgrade to update a U6+lots'o'patches system to vanilla U8. I
> ran across CR 6884728, which results in extraneous lines in vfstab
> preventing successful boot. I logged in with maintainence mode and deleted
Haveing a
Hmmm,
wondering about IMHO strange ZFS results ...
X4440: 4x6 2.8GHz cores (Opteron 8439 SE), 64 GB RAM
6x Sun STK RAID INT V1.0 (Hitachi H103012SCSUN146G SAS)
Nevada b124
Started with a simple test using zfs on c1t0d0s0: cd /var/tmp
(1) time sh -c 'mkfile 32g bla ; sync'
0.16
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:55:57AM -0700, Ben Middleton wrote:
Hi,
> $ ludelete 10_05-09
>
> System has findroot enabled GRUB
> Checking if last BE on any disk...
> ERROR: cannot mount '/.alt.10_05-09/var': directory is not empty
> ERROR: cannot mount mount point device
>
> ERROR: failed to
.
Now, my question is:
How would I go about replicating this non-native FS to the backup server?
Can I have snapshots of the zvol like if it was a native zfs filesystem?
If yes, do they take up as little space and overhead as "normal" snapshots?
Thanks,
Jens.
___
snapshot, you'll need to pause all traffic to the LUN while taking the
> snapshot.
>
> --
> --Tim
So what you're saying is that it "just works". That's great.
My Google-Fu failed me in securing a proper answer, so thank you!
Jens.
__
Hi,
just got a quote from our campus reseller, that readzilla and logzilla
are not available for the X4540 - hmm strange Anyway, wondering
whether it is possible/supported/would make sense to use a Sun Flash
Accelerator F20 PCIe Card in a X4540 instead of 2.5" SSDs?
If so, is it possible to
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 03:28:29PM +, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Jens Elkner wrote:
Hi Robert,
> >
> >just got a quote from our campus reseller, that readzilla and logzilla
> >are not available for the X4540 - hmm strange Anyway, wondering
> >whether it is po
).
So, seems to be a really interesting thing and I expect at least wrt.
user homes a real improvement, no matter, how the final configuration
will look like.
Maybe the experts at the source are able to do some 4x SSD vs. 1xF20
benchmarks? I guess at least if they turn out to be good enough, it
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:29:50PM +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Jens Elkner
> wrote:
...
> > Problem is pool1 - user homes! So GNOME/firefox/eclipse/subversion/soffice
...
> Flash-based read cache should help here by minimizing (metadata) read
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:29:18AM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On February 3, 2010 12:04:07 PM +0200 Henu wrote:
> >Is there a possibility to get a list of changed files between two
> >snapshots?
>
> Great timing as I just looked this up last night, I wanted to verify
> that an install program w
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 12:19:50PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On February 3, 2010 6:02:52 PM +0100 Jens Elkner
> wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:29:18AM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> >># newer files
> >>find /file/system -newer /file/system/.zfs/snapshot/
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 06:46:57PM -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Frank Cusack z...@linetwo.net> wrote:
>
> >On February 3, 2010 12:19:50 PM -0500 Frank Cusack
> > wrote:
> >>If you do need to know about deleted files, the find method still may
> >>be faster depending o
Is somebody able to explain this?
elkner.isis /zpool1 > df -h
...
zpool1 21T 623G20T 3%/zpool1
...
elkner.isis /zpool1 > ls -al
total 1306050271
drwxr-xr-x 2 root sys4 Feb 26 00:14 .
drwxr-xr-x 25 root root 512 Feb 25 23:43 ..
-rw--
Hi Wire ;-),
> What's the output of
> zpool list
> zfs list
> ?
Ooops, already destroyed the pool. Anyway, slept a night over it and found a
"maybe explaination":
Files were created with mkfile an mkfile has an option -n. It was not used to
create the files, however I interrupted mkfile (^C).
Currently I'm trying to figure out the best zfs layout for a thumper wrt. to
read AND write performance.
I did some simple mkfile 512G tests and found out, that per average ~ 500 MB/s
seems to be the maximum on can reach (tried initial default setup, all 46 HDDs
as R0, etc.).
According to
h
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 06:36:47PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
> Jens Elkner wrote:
> >Currently I'm trying to figure out the best zfs layout for a thumper wrt.
> >to read AND write performance.
>
> First things first. What is the expected workload? Random, seque
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:35:37AM +0100, Roch - PAE wrote:
>
> That might be a per pool limitation due to
>
> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6460622
Not sure - did not use compression feature...
> This performance feature was fixed in Nevada last week.
> Wo
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:45:35AM +0100, Roch - PAE wrote:
> > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6460622
Any estimations, when we'll see a [feature] fix for U3?
Should I open a call, to perhaps rise the priority for the fix?
> The bug applies to checksum as well. Al
Hi,
S10U3: It seems, that ufs POSIX-ACLs are not properly translated to zfs
ACL4 entries, when one xfers a directory tree from UFS to ZFS.
Test case:
Assuming one has an user A and B, both belonging to group G and having
their
umask set to 022:
1) On UFS
- as user A do:
mkdir /dir
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:45:47AM -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Hi Mark,
> Jens Elkner wrote:
> >cp -P -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir
> ># cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry
> I will open a bug on that.
Also opened a case: #37814372
> I can't
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:34:15PM -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
>
> >>There is one big difference which you see here. ZFS always honors the
> >>users umask, and that is why the file was created with 644 permission
> >>rather than 664 as UFS did. ZFS has to always apply the users umask
> >>b
Hi Jim,
that's absolutely great, respect.
Where is it possible to get more infos about what you have done so far?
to rebuild that for a own try?
cheers
Jens
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-di
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 04:23:12PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anthony J. Scarpino wrote:
> >
> >On our server, I've got a zfs directory called "cube/builds/izick/". In
> >this directory I have a number of mountpoints to other zfs file systems..
> >The problem happens when we clone a new
Hi,
why is it so time consuming being on an opensolaris discuss mailing
list? Obviously because many people never learned/forgot how to quote.
So please: http://learn.to/quote
Thanx,
jel.
--
Otto-von-Guericke University http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/
Department of Computer Science Geb. 29
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 01:20:45PM -0400, Christine Tran wrote:
> Jens Elkner wrote:
>
> >So please: http://learn.to/quote
>
> We apparently need to learn German as well. -CT
Not really. There is also a "Dutch" version ;-)
For your convinience (and all people, w
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 12:24:48PM -0500, Gael wrote:
> As I saw the same issue with the previous release, I'm going to post that
> one here and not on the U4 Beta forum.
>
> I'm trying to create a miniroot image for wanboot from the S10u4 media (same
> issue occured with S10u3 media) on a zfs fil
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:10:18PM -0700, eric kustarz wrote:
>
> There's going to be some very good stuff for ZFS in s10u4, can you
> please update the issues *and* features when it comes out?
Yes, and don't forget to add, that the POSIX ACL has been dropped/replaced by
the braindamaged NFS4 A
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:19:05PM +0200, Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
Hi,
> http://blogs.sun.com/constantin/entry/new_zfs_white_paper_in
Excellent!!!
I think it is a pretty good idea, to put the links for the
paper and slides on the ZFS Documentation page aka
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/commu
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:49:26AM -0700, Sergey Chechelnitskiy wrote:
Hi Sergey,
>
> I have a flat directory with a lot of small files inside. And I have a java
> application that reads all these files when it starts. If this directory is
> located on ZFS the application starts fast (15 mins) w
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:14:57AM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Where is ZFS with regards to the NVRAM cache present on arrays?
>
> I have a pile of 3310 with 512 megs cache, and even some 3510FC with 1-gig
> cache. It seems silly that it's going to waste. These are dual-controller
> units so I
) == 0, file ../zdb.c, line 1416, function
zdb_leak_init
Abort
We're already running Solaris Express Build 101.
Jens
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolari
Hi,
in preparation to try zfs boot on sparc I installed all recent patches
incl. feature patches comming from s10s_u3wos_10 and after reboot
finally 137137-09 (still having everything on UFS).
Now it doesn't boot at anymore:
###
Sun Fire V240, No Keyboard
Copyright 200
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:50:02AM -0800, Enda wrote:
> What hardware are you on, and what firmware are you at.
> Issue is coming from firmware.
Sun Fire V240 with OpenBoot 4.22.23
Tried to find out, whether there is an OBP patch available, but haven't
found anything wrt. V240, V440 and V490 :(
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 04:54:57PM -0800, Gerry Haskins wrote:
> Jens, http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/patches/firmware/release_history.jsp on
> the Big Admin Patching center, http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/patches/ list
> firmware revisions.
Thanks a lot. Digged around there and found, th
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:07:29PM -0800, Ed Clark wrote:
hi,
>
> is the system still in the same state initially reported ?
Yes.
> ie. you have not manually run any commands (ie. installboot) that would have
> altered the slice containing the root fs where 137137-09 was applied
>
> could you
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:27:32AM -0800, Ed Clark wrote:
Hi Ed,
> > > 1. a copy of the 137137-09 patchadd log if you have
> > http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~elkner/137137-09/
> thanks for info - what you provided here is the patch pkg installation log,
Yes, actually the only one, I have/coul
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 07:44:56PM -0800, Ed Clark wrote:
Hi Ed,
> messages from the underlying pkging commands are captured in the
> /var/sadm/patch//log file
>
> messages from patchadd itself and patch level scripts (prepatch, postpatch,
> etc) go to stdout/stderr
>
> these are two distinc
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 03:42:17PM -0800, David Pacheco wrote:
> Pawel Tecza wrote:
> > But I still don't understand why `zfs list` doesn't display snapshots
> > by default. I saw it in the Net many times at the examples of zfs usage.
>
> This was PSARC/2008/469 - excluding snapshot info from 'zfs
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 06:34:47PM -0500, Richard Morris - Sun Microsystems -
Burlington United States wrote:
>option to list all datasets. So 6734907 added -t all which produces the
>same output as -t filesystem,volume,snapshot.
>1. http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=673
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 12:22:49PM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Reviving this thread.
>
> We have a Solaris 10u4 system recently patched with 137137-09.
> Unfortunately the patch was applied from multi-user mode, I wonder if this
> may have been original posters problem as well? Anyhow we are now
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 05:43:23PM -0800, Elaine Ashton wrote:
> I've got a fresh install of 101a on a thumper with 48 disks and zfs with one
> large 46 drive raidz2 pool. It has no load at the moment. My problem is that
> the SUNWhd tools are excrutiatingly slow, by excrutiating I mean that the
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:08:09PM -0500, amy.r...@tufts.edu wrote:
> I've installed an s10u6 machine with no UFS partitions at all. I've created a
> dataset for zones and one for a zone named "default." I then do an lucreate
> and luactivate and a subsequent boot off the new BE. All of that app
Hi,
just found on a X4500 with S10u6:
fmd: [ID 441519 daemon.error] SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-GH, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1,
SEVERITY: Major
EVENT-TIME: Wed Feb 11 16:03:26 CET 2009
PLATFORM: Sun Fire X4500, CSN: 00:14:4F:20:E0:2C , HOSTNAME: peng
SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0
EVENT-ID: 74e6f0ec-b1e7-e4
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:41:40AM -0700, Joe S wrote:
> Today, I noticed this:
...
> According to http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-9P:
>
> The Message ID: ZFS-8000-9P indicates a device has exceeded the
> acceptable limit of errors allowed by the system. See document 203768
> for additional inform
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:32:13PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An
> attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected.
...
> errors: No known data errors
>
> Now I wonder where that error came from. It was j
Hi,
does anybody know, whether it is possible to get the java source for
swat (where/how)?
Thanx,
jel.
--
Otto-von-Guericke University http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/
Department of Computer Science Geb. 29 R 027, Universitaetsplatz 2
39106 Magdeburg, Germany Tel: +49 391 67 12768
_
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:06:49AM +0300, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
>Is anyone even using ZFS under Xen in production in some form. If so,
> what's
>your impression of reliability ?
Hmm, somebody needs to out itself. Short answer: yes.
Details:
Well, i've installed an IntelServer (2x QuadCore E
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 02:51:53PM -0700, Nandini Mocherla wrote:
> Here is the short story about of my Live Upgrade problem. This is not
...
> # mount -F zfs /dev/dsk/c1t2d0s0 /mnt
> cannot open '/dev/dsk/c1t2d0s0': invalid dataset name
Have seen this when LUing from b110 to b114 on a V240 (we
Hmmm,
just upgraded some servers to U7. Unfortunately one server's primary disk
died during the upgrade, so that luactivate was not able to activate the
s10u7 BE ("Unable to determine the configuration ..."). Since the rpool
is a 2-way mirror, the boot-device=/p...@1f,70/s...@2/d...@1,0:a was
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 05:58:00PM -0600, Lori Alt wrote:
First: Thanx a lot, Lori for the quick help!!!
> On 06/16/09 16:32, Jens Elkner wrote:
> >At the evening the faulty disk was replaced and the mirror resilvered via
> >'zpool replace rpool c1t1d0s0' (see below).
Hi,
> This CR has been marked as "incomplete" by
> for the reason "Need More Info". Please update the CR
> providing the information requested in the Evaluation and/or Comments
> field.
hmmm - wondering, how to find out, what 'more info' means and how to
provide this info. There is no URL in th
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 09:08:44AM -0700, Daniel Liebster wrote:
> I ran a zfs destroy on a 20TB volume on a Thumper running snv_117, and its
> been 2 hours now with a huge amount of read activity. In the past(2008.06)
> destroy came back with in a minutes.
> Is this expected in snv_117? and if n
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 08:06:53AM +1300, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 10/26/10 01:38 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> >>From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> >>boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ian Collins
> >>
> >>Sun hardware? Then you get all your support from one vendo
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 03:04:27AM -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
Hi,
>
> I haven't had a chance to test a Vertex 2 PRO against my 2 EX, and I'd
> be interested if anyone else has. The EX is SLC-based, and the PRO is
> MLC-based, but the claimed performance numbers are similar. If the PRO
> work
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:31:59AM -0500, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > What is the status of ZFS support for TRIM?
> [...]
> My initial idea was to implement 100% reliable TRIM, so that I can
> implement secure delete using it,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 08:29:31PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
...
> >I don't follow? What else would an X4540 or a 7xxx box
> >be used for, other than a storage appliance?
...
> No, I just wasn't clear - we use ours as storage/application servers.
> Th
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 06:17:08PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:54 -0400, Paul Kraus wrote:
> Here's how you calculate (average) how long a random IOPs takes:
> seek time + ((60 / RPMs) / 2))]
>
> A truly sequential IOPs is:
> (60 / RPMs) / 2)
>
> For that series of dr
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 01:55:27PM +0200, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
Hi,
>
>my system is running oi148 on a super micro X8SIL-F board. I have two pools
>(2 disc mirror, 4 disc RAIDZ) with RAID level SATA drives. (Hitachi
> HUA72205
>and SAMSUNG HE103UJ). The system runs as expected h
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:41:32AM +0100, Matt Harrison wrote:
Hi,
>
> I've got a system with 3 WD and 3 seagate drives. Today I got an email
> that zpool status indicated one of the seagate drives as REMOVED.
>
> I've tried clearing the error but the pool becomes faulted again. Taken
> out the
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:52:42AM +0100, Matt Harrison wrote:
> On 11/09/2011 18:32, Krunal Desai wrote:
> >On Sep 11, 2011, at 13:01 , Richard Elling wrote:
> >>The removed state can be the result of a transport issue. If this is a
> >>Solaris-based
> >>OS, then look at "fmadm faulty" for a diag
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:50:37PM -0400, John Martin wrote:
> On 09/12/11 10:33, Jens Elkner wrote:
>
> >Hmmm, at least if S11x, ZFS mirror, ICH10 and cmdk (IDE) driver is
> >involved,
> >I'm 99.9% confident, that "a while" turns out to be some days
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:33:57AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Paul B. Henson wrote:
> > I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user
> > home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
>
> Why not the in kernel CIFS server ?
E.g., how would one
Hi,
I wanna try to setup a machine via jumpstart with ZFS boot using svn_b95.
Usually (UFS) I use a profile like this for it:
install_typeinitial_install
system_type standalone
usedisk c1t0d0
partitioningexplicit
filesys c1t0d0s0256 /
filesys c1t0d0s116384 s
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 02:33:19PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> There is a section on jumpstart for root ZFS in the ZFS Administration
> Guide.
>http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfsadmin.pdf
Ah ok - thanx for the link. Seems to be almost the same, as on the web
pages (though
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:49:54PM -0400, Ellis, Mike wrote:
> You can break out "just var", not the others.
Yepp - and that's not sufficient :(
Regards,
jel.
--
Otto-von-Guericke University http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/
Department of Computer Science Geb. 29 R 027, Universitaetsplatz 2
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 08:17:55PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> John Sonnenschein wrote:
> >
> > Look, yanking the drives like that can seriously damage the drives
> > or your motherboard. Solaris doesn't let you do it ...
Haven't seen an andruid/"universal soldier" shipping with Solaris ... ;-)
>
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:04:34PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Eric Schrock wrote:
> > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=73740&tstart=0
>
> I must apologize for anoying everyone. When Richard Elling posted the
> GreenBytes link without saying what it w
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:44:21PM -0500, Al Hopper wrote:
>
> This behavior is common to tmpfs, UFS and I tested it on early ZFS
> releases. I have no idea why - I have not made the time to figure it
> out. What I have observed is that all operations on your (victim)
> test directory will max o
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:01:39PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:44:21PM -0500, Al Hopper wrote:
> >
> > This behavior is common to tmpfs, UFS and I tested it on early ZFS
> > releases. I have no idea why - I have not made the time to figure it
> > out. What I have ob
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:35:47AM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
>The reason why the (implicit) truncation could be taking long might be due
>to
>6723423 [6]UFS slow following large file deletion with fix for 6513858
>installed
>
>To overcome this problem for S10, the offe
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 05:08:13PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> Scott Williamson wrote:
> > Speaking of this, is there a list anywhere that details what we can
> > expect to see for (zfs) updates in S10U6?
>
> The official release name is "Solaris 10 10/08"
Ooops - no beta this time?
Regards,
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 02:54:10PM -0800, Yuan Chu wrote:
Hi,
> a disk may take seconds or
> even tens of seconds to come on line if it needs to be powered up
> and spin up.
Yes - I really hate this on my U40 and tried to disable PM for HDD[s]
completely. However, haven't found a way to d
Hi Erik,
hi Victor,
I have exactly the same problem as you described in your thread.
Could you please explain to me what to do to recover the data
on the pool?
Thanks in advance,
Jens Hamisch
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs
I've created a zone which should mount the /pool1/flexlm.ulo zfs via lofs:
+ zfs create pool1/flexlm.ulo
+ zfs set atime=off pool1/flexlm.ulo
+ zfs set sharenfs=off pool1/flexlm.ulo
+ zonecfg -z flexlm
...
add fs
set dir=/usr/local
set special=/pool1/flexlm.ulo
set typ
rade performance
Yes, I guessed that, but hopefully not that much ...
Thinking about it, it would suggest to me (if I need abs. max. perf): the best
thing to do is, to create a pool inside the zone and to use zfs on it ?
Regards,
jens.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
> Using a ZFS filesystem within a zone will go just as
> fast as in the
> global zone, so there's no need to create multiple
> pools.
So, Robert is actually wrong (at least in theory): using a zfs via
add:fs:dir..,type=lofs gives probably less performances than using it via
add:dataset:name. Co
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 08:12:48AM +1000, Alan Hargreaves wrote:
> There is a ZFS Community on the Oracle Communities that was just kicked
> off this month -
> https://communities.oracle.com/portal/server.pt/community/oracle_solaris_zfs_file_system/526
Ohh, another censored forum/crappy thing -
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:57:34PM -0500, Jerry Kemp wrote:
> I remember a similar video that was up on YouTube as done by some of the
> Sun guys employed in Germany. They build a big array from USB drives,
> then exported the pool. Once the system was down, they re-arranged all
> the drives in r
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 08:50:40AM -0700, Peter Wood wrote:
>I'm sorry. I should have mentioned it that I can't find any errors in the
>logs. The last entry in /var/adm/messages is that I removed the keyboard
>after the last reboot and then it shows the new boot up messages when I
> bo
90 matches
Mail list logo
