Hum
i know the recommended and the update patches bundles
according to the readme
Patch 139555-08 is the kernel patch associated with the Solaris 10 5/09 release
(Solaris 10 Update 7).
so i believe i'm up to date
i understand i'm a bit vague but i cannot provide any Zpool or zfs output
until i
serge goyette wrote:
actually i did apply the latest recommended patches
Recommended patches and upgrade clusters are different by the way.
10_Recommended != Upgrade Cluster that. Upgrade cluster will upgrade
the system to a effectively the Solaris Release that the upgrade cluster
is minu
actually i did apply the latest recommended patches
SunOS VL-MO-ZMR01 5.10 Generic_139555-08 sun4v sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise-T5120
but still
perhaps you are not doing much import - export
because when i do not do, i do not experience much problem
but when doing it, outch ...
a reboot will so
The latest official Solaris 10 is actually 05/09. There are update patch
bundles available
on Sunsolve for free download that will take you to 05/09. It may well
be worth applying
these to see if they remedy the problem for you. They certainly allow
you to bring ZFS up to version
10 from recolle
for release sorry i meant
Solaris 10 10/08 s10s_u6wos_07b SPARC
Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 27 October 2008
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Miles,
Miles Nordin wrote:
>> "tn" == Thomas Nau writes:
>
> tn> After updating the machine to b114 we ran into a strange
> tn> problem. The pool get's imported (listed by 'zpool list') but
> tn> none of it's ZFS filesystems get mounted. Exporting and
> tn> reimporting manua
> "tn" == Thomas Nau writes:
tn> After updating the machine to b114 we ran into a strange
tn> problem. The pool get's imported (listed by 'zpool list') but
tn> none of it's ZFS filesystems get mounted. Exporting and
tn> reimporting manually fixes the problem as does "zfs mount
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> > Nope, but you should be able to just use access(2) to determine if you
> > need to add the ACL entry.
> >
>
> But that probably won't work since you won't be running as that user yet
> and access(2) would be checking off of a privileged cred.
For this purpose, POSI
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 04:46:33PM -0700, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> >>> You should probably make sure that you just don't keep continually
> >>> adding the same entry over and over again to the ACL. With NFSv4 ACLs
> >>> you can insert the same entry multiple times and
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
>>> You should probably make sure that you just don't keep continually
>>> adding the same entry over and over again to the ACL. With NFSv4 ACLs
>>> you can insert the same entry multiple times and if you keep doing it
>>> long enough you will eventually get an error bac
>> You should probably make sure that you just don't keep continually
>> adding the same entry over and over again to the ACL. With NFSv4 ACLs
>> you can insert the same entry multiple times and if you keep doing it
>> long enough you will eventually get an error back when you reach the
>> ACE
Mark:
> You could call acl(2) directly, but you would have to construct a
> complete ACL to set. It would be easier to use acl_get() and acl_set()
> which understand the various ACL flavors and will call the syscall with
> correct ACL flavor arguments.
>
> Unfortunately, what you are wanting
Brian Cameron wrote:
> Mark & Others:
>
>> I think you may have misunderstood what people were suggesting. They
>> weren't suggesting changing the mode of the file, but using chmod(1M) to
>> add/modify ZFS ACLs on the device file.
>>
>> chmod A+user:gdm:rwx:allow
>>
>> See chmod(1M) or the zfs
Mark & Others:
> I think you may have misunderstood what people were suggesting. They
> weren't suggesting changing the mode of the file, but using chmod(1M) to
> add/modify ZFS ACLs on the device file.
>
> chmod A+user:gdm:rwx:allow
>
> See chmod(1M) or the zfs admin guide for ZFS ACL exam
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 09:09:15AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >When I switch away from a session where programs are producing sound
> >what should happen is this: a) those programs continue to operate, b)
> >but they don't produce actual sound until I switch back to that VT (and
> >unlock th
>On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 04:46:37PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote:
>> >Is there a shortcomming in VT here?
>>
>> I guess it depends on how you think VT should work. My understanding
>> is that VT works on a first-come-first-serve basis, so the first user
>> who calls logindevperm interfaces gets pe
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 04:46:37PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote:
> >Is there a shortcomming in VT here?
>
> I guess it depends on how you think VT should work. My understanding
> is that VT works on a first-come-first-serve basis, so the first user
> who calls logindevperm interfaces gets permissio
Nicolas:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:27:49PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote:
>> login, they get the audio device. Then you can use VT switching in GDM
>> to start up a second graphical login. If this user needs text-to-speech,
>> they are out of luck since they can't access the audio device from t
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:27:49PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Once VT is enabled in the Xserver and GDM, users can start multiple
> graphical logins with GDM. So, if a user logs into the first graphical
Ah, right, I'd forgotten this.
> login, they get the audio device. Then you can use VT sw
Nicolas:
>> I agree that the solution of GDM messing with ACL's is not an ideal
>> solution. No matter how we resolve this problem, I think a scenario
>> could be imagined where the audio would not be managed as expected.
>> This is because if multiple users are competing for the same audio
>> d
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 02:22:01PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote:
> >That said, I don't see why di_devperm_login() couldn't stomp all over
> >the ACL too. So you'll need to make sure that di_devperm_login()
> >doesn't stomp over the ACL, which will probably mean running an ARC case
> >and updating th
Nicholas:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 03:20:01PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote:
>> Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, using chmod/chown does not
>> seem a workable solution to me, unless I am missing something. Normally
>> logindevperm(4) is used for managing the ownership and permissions of
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 03:20:01PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, using chmod/chown does not
> seem a workable solution to me, unless I am missing something. Normally
> logindevperm(4) is used for managing the ownership and permissions of
> device files (
>
> ACL's seemed a good solution since it leaves the overall ownership
> and permissions of the device the same, but just adds the gdm user as
> having permission to access the device as needed. Is there any way to
> get this same sort of behavior when using ZFS.
>
I think you may have misunde
Mark/Tomas/Miles:
Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, using chmod/chown does not
seem a workable solution to me, unless I am missing something. Normally
logindevperm(4) is used for managing the ownership and permissions of
device files (like the audio device), and if the GDM daemon just
> However, I notice that when using ZFS on Indiana the above commands fail
> with the following error:
>
>File system doesn't support aclent_t style ACL's.
>See acl(5) for more information on ACL styles support by Solaris.
>
> What is the appropriate command to use with ZFS?
You can us
On 05 December, 2008 - Brian Cameron sent me these 1,5K bytes:
>
> I am the maintainer of GDM, and I am noticing that GDM has a problem when
> running on a ZFS filesystem, as with Indiana.
>
> When GDM (the GNOME Display Manager) starts the login GUI, it runs the
> following commands on Solaris:
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 07:21:52PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On August 19, 2006 7:06:06 PM -0700 Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >My guess is that the filesystem is not mounted. It should be remounted
> >after the 'zfs recv', but perhaps that is not happening correctly. You
> >c
On August 19, 2006 7:06:06 PM -0700 Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 06:31:47PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
But when I login to zone smb and cd to /share/tmp/.zfs I get 'no such
file or directory'. This does exist for other filesystems like
/zone/eng/.zfs.
My g
29 matches
Mail list logo
