"Glaser, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all, I?m new to the list and I thought I?d start out on the right
> foot. ZFS is great, but I have a couple questions?.
>
> I have a Try-n-buy x4500 with one large zfs pool with 40 1TB drives in
> it. The pool is named backup.
>
> Of this pool, I ha
Hi all, I'm new to the list and I thought I'd start out on the right foot. ZFS
is great, but I have a couple questions
I have a Try-n-buy x4500 with one large zfs pool with 40 1TB drives in it. The
pool is named backup.
Of this pool, I have a number of volumes.
backup/clients
backup/clien
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 14:15 -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote:
> I've run across an odd issue with ZFS Quota's. This is an snv_43 system with
> several zones/zfs datasets, but only one effected. The dataset shows 10GB
> used, 12GB refered but when counting the files only has 6.7GB of data:
>
> zones/A
I've run across an odd issue with ZFS Quota's. This is an snv_43 system with
several zones/zfs datasets, but only one effected. The dataset shows 10GB
used, 12GB refered but when counting the files only has 6.7GB of data:
zones/ABC10.8G 26.2G 12.0G /zones/ABC
zones/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brad Plecs wrote:
> I ended up going back to rsync, because we had more and more
> complaints as the snapshots accumulated, but am now just rsyncing to
> another system, which in turn runs snapshots on the backup copy. It's
> still time- and i/o-consu
Hello Brad,
Monday, August 27, 2007, 3:47:47 PM, you wrote:
>> OK, you asked for "creative" workarounds... here's one (though it requires
>> that the filesystem be briefly unmounted, which may be deal-killing):
BP> That is, indeed, creative. :) And yes, the unmount make it
BP> impractical i
> OK, you asked for "creative" workarounds... here's one (though it requires
> that the filesystem be briefly unmounted, which may be deal-killing):
That is, indeed, creative. :) And yes, the unmount make it
impractical in my environment.
I ended up going back to rsync, because we had mor
Hello,
it seems that while designing the ZFS-Quota and bringing functionality into it
which
was not included in the traditional ufs user quota, some of its functionality
is missing.
In the FAQ is stated: "Per-user quotas were introduced because multiple users
had to share the same file system."
Brad Plecs wrote:
> I hate to start rsyncing again, but may be forced to; policing the snapshot
> space consumption is
> getting painful, but the online snapshot feature is too valuable to discard
> altogether.
>
> or if there are other creative solutions, I'm all ears...
OK, you asked for "
Just wanted to voice another request for this feature.
I was forced on a previous Solaris10/ZFS system to rsync whole filesystems, and
snapshot the backup copy to prevent the snapshots from negatively impacting
users. This obviously has the effect of reducing available space on the system
by o
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 08:53:28AM -0700, Dmitry wrote:
> Hello
>
> Is there a way to limit size of filesystem not including snapshots?
> Or even better size of data on filesystem regardless of compression.
> If not is it planned?
> It is hard to explain to user that it is normal that after deleti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/07/2007 10:53:28 AM:
> Hello
>
> Is there a way to limit size of filesystem not including snapshots?
> Or even better size of data on filesystem regardless of compression.
> If not is it planned?
> It is hard to explain to user that it is normal that after delet
Hello
Is there a way to limit size of filesystem not including snapshots?
Or even better size of data on filesystem regardless of compression.
If not is it planned?
It is hard to explain to user that it is normal that after deleting his files
he did not receive more space. Even harder to ask to u
13 matches
Mail list logo
