On 12/14/12 10:07 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
wrote:
Is that right? You can't use zfs send | zfs receive to send from a newer
version and receive on an older version?
No. You can, with recv, override any property in the sending stream that can be
set from
That is a touch misleading. This has always been the case since S10u2. You
have to create the pool AND the file systems at the oldest versions you want to
support.
I maintain a table of pool and version numbers on my blog (blogs.oracle.
com/bobn) for this very purpose. I got lazy the
yesterday :)
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Jan Owoc jso...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Bob Netherton bob.nether...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Jan Owoc jso...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that is correct. The last version of Solaris
:54 PM, Jan Owoc jso...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Bob Netherton bob.nether...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Jan Owoc jso...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that is correct. The last version of Solaris with source code
used zpool version 28. This is the last
I'll agree with Bob on this. A specific use case is a VirtualBox server
hosting lots of guests. I even made a point of mentioning this tunable in the
Solaris 10 Virtualization Essentials section on vbox :)
There are several other use cases as well.
Bob
Bob
Sent from my iPad
On May 17,
zhihui Chen wrote:
I have created a pool on external storage with B114. Then I export this pool
and import it on another system with B110.But this import will fail and show
error: cannot import 'tpool': pool is formatted using a newer ZFS version.
Any big change in ZFS with B114 leads to this
since I am trying to keep my pools at a version that different updates
can handle, I personally am glad it did not get rev'ed. I did get into
trouble recently that SX-CE 112 created a file system on an old pool
with a version newer than Solaris 10 likes :(
-o is your best friend ;-)
Bob Doolittle wrote:
Blake wrote:
You need to use 'installgrub' to get the right boot pits in place on
your new disk.
I did that, but it didn't help.
I ran:
installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c4t1d0s0
Is it OK to run this before resilvering has completed?
You
Multiple pools on one server only makes sense if you are going to have
different RAS for each pool for business reasons. It's a lot easier to
have a single pool though. I recommend it.
A couple of other things to consider to go with that recommendation.
- never build a pool larger than you
Bob is right. Less chance of failure perhaps but also less
protection. I don't like it when my storage lies to me :)
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Blake wrote:
SinceZFS is trying to
I am a bit slow today. It seems like a dying drive should be replaced
ASAP.
Completely agree with Bob on this. I drive an 8.000lb truck and the
tires have industrial strength runflats. If I get a puncture or tear
in a tire I replace it as soon as I can, not when it is convenient.
The
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 04:44:10PM -0800, Mark Dornfeld wrote:
I have installed Solaris 10 on a ZFS filesystem that is not mirrored. Since
I have an identical disk in the machine, I'd like to add that disk to the
existing pool as a mirror. Can this be done, and if so,
This argument can be proven by basic statistics without need to resort
to actual testing.
Mathematical proof reality of how things end up getting used.
Luckily, most data access is not completely random in nature.
Which was my point exactly. I've never seen a purely mathematical
model
In other words, for random access across a working set larger (by say X%)
than the SSD-backed L2 ARC, the cache is useless. This should asymptotically
approach truth as X grows and experience shows that X=200% is where it's
about 99% true.
Ummm, before we throw around phrases like
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 19:54 -0500, Krzys wrote:
WHen property value copies is set to value greater than 1 how does it work?
Will
it store second copy of data on different disk? or does it store it on the
same
disk? Also when this setting is changed at some point on file system, will it
On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 09:16 -0700, Daniel Templeton wrote:
Is there a way that I can add the disk to a ZFS pool and have
the ZFS pool accessible to all of the OS instances? I poked through the
docs and searched around a bit, but I couldn't find anything on the topic.
Yes. I do that all of
soren wrote:
ZFS has detected that my root filesystem has a small number of errors. Is
there a way to tell which specific files have been corrupted?
After a scrub a zpool status -v should give you a list of files with
unrecoverable errors.
Bob
On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 20:46 -0700, Rahul wrote:
hi
can you give some disadvantages of the ZFS file system??
In what context ? Relative to what ?
Bob
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 13:25 -0700, Ross wrote:
Hey folks,
I guess this is an odd question to be asking here, but I could do with some
feedback from anybody who's actually using ZFS in anger.
ZFS in anger ? That's an interesting way of putting it :-)
but I have some real concerns about
We haven't had any real life drive failures at work, but at home I
took some old flaky IDE drives and put them in a pentium 3 box running
Nevada.
Similar story here. Some IDE and SATA drive burps under Linux (and
please don't tell me how wonderful Reiser4 is - 'cause it's banned in
this
I want to
start testing out ZFS boot and zfs allow to minimize the delay between the
release of U6 and my production deployment.
Good observation. I mention this in every Solaris briefing that I do.
Get some stick time with this capability using SXCE or OpenSolaris so
that you can reduce
Multi-boot system (s10u3, s10u4, and nevada84) having problems
mounting ZFS filesystems at boot time. The pool is s10u3
are are most of the filesystems. A few of the filesystems
are nevada83.
# zfs mount -a
cannot mount '/pandora': directory is not empty
# zfs list -o name,mountpoint
NAME
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 09:00 -0700, lonny wrote:
I've noticed a similar behavior in my writes. ZFS seems to write in bursts of
around 5 seconds. I assume it's just something to do with caching?
Yep - the ZFS equivalent of fsflush. Runs more often so the pipes don't
get as clogged. We've had
23 matches
Mail list logo
