Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a difference though as far as I can tell. Sometimes on Solaris
we have p? for fdisk partitioning included and sometimes we don't;
similarly we sometimes don't have t? for target. Personally I'd prefer
us to be consis
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a difference though as far as I can tell. Sometimes on Solaris we
> > have p? for fdisk partitioning included and sometimes we don't; similarly
> > we
> > sometimes don't have t? for target. Personally I'd prefer us to be
> > consistent a
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a difference though as far as I can tell. Sometimes on Solaris
> we have p? for fdisk partitioning included and sometimes we don't;
> similarly we sometimes don't have t? for target. Personally I'd prefer
> us to be consistent always even
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 14:06 +0200, Frank Hofmann wrote:
> I second the call for consistency, but think that this means dumping
> partitions/slices from the actual device name. A disk is a disk - one unit
> of storage. How it is subdivided and how/whether the subdivisions are made
> available as
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Paul van der Zwan wrote:
I just booted up Minix 3.1.1 today in Qemu and noticed to my surprise
that it has a disk nameing scheme similar to what Solaris uses.
It has c?d?p?s? note that both p (PC FDISK I assume) and s is used,
HP-UX uses the same sc
Paul van der Zwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > HP-UX uses the same scheme.
> >
>
> I think any system descending from the old SysV branch has the c?t?d?
> s? naming convention.
> I don't remember which version first used it but as far as I remember
> it was already used in the mid 80's.
I be
Paul van der Zwan wrote:
I just booted up Minix 3.1.1 today in Qemu and noticed to my surprise
that it has a disk nameing scheme similar to what Solaris uses.
It has c?d?p?s? note that both p (PC FDISK I assume) and s is used,
HP-UX uses the same scheme.
I think any system descending from t
On 9-mei-2006, at 11:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
I personally hate this device naming semantic (/dev/rdsk/c-t-d
not meaning what you'd logically expect it to). (It's a generic
Solaris bug, not a ZFS thing.) I'll see
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Bonwick wrote:
> >
> > I personally hate this device naming semantic (/dev/rdsk/c-t-d
> > not meaning what you'd logically expect it to). (It's a generic
> > Solaris bug, not a ZFS thing.) I'll see if I can get it changed.
> >
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
I personally hate this device naming semantic (/dev/rdsk/c-t-d
not meaning what you'd logically expect it to). (It's a generic
Solaris bug, not a ZFS thing.) I'll see if I can get it changed.
Because almost everyone gets bitten by this.
I've heard lots
> bash-3.00# dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/dsk/c1t10d0 bs=1024 count=20480
A couple of things:
(1) When you write to /dev/dsk, rather than /dev/rdsk, the results
are cached in memory. So the on-disk state may have been unaltered.
(2) When you write to /dev/rdsk/c-t-d, without specifying a slic
Hi, I am using Solaris Express 04/06 (snv_36) and tried to do the same tasks as
in Dan Price's Self Healing screencast
bash-3.00# zpool status
pool: tank
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
tank ONLINE 0 0 0
12 matches
Mail list logo
