[zfs-discuss] There is no NFS over ZFS issue
Regarding the bold statement There is no NFS over ZFS issue What I mean here is that,if you _do_ encounter a performance pathology not linked to the NVRAM Storage/cache flush issue then you _should_ complain or better get someone to do an analysis of the situation. One should not assume that someobserved pathological performance of NFS/ZFS is widespread and due to some known ZFS issue about to be fixed. To be sure, there are lots of performance opportunities that will provide incremental improvements the most significant of which ZFSSeparate Intent Log just integrated in Nevada. This opens up the field for further NFS/ZFS performance investigations. But the data that got this thread started seem to highlight an NFS vs Samba opportinity, something we need to look into. Otherwise I don't think that the data produced so far has hightlighted any specific NFS/ZFS issue.There are certainly opportinitiesfor incremental performance improvements but, to the best of my knowledge, outside the NVRAM/Flush issue on certain storage : There are no known prevalent NFS over ZFS performance pathologies on record. -r Ref: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-June/thread.html#29026 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS - DB2 Performance
Hi all, I am after some help/feedback to the subject issue explained below. We are in the process of migrating a big DB2 database from a 6900 24 x 200MHz CPU's with Veritas FS 8TB of storage Solaris 8 to 25K 12 CPU dual core x 1800Mhz with ZFS 8TB storage SAN storage (compressed RaidZ) Solaris 10. Unfortunately, we are having massive perfomance problems with the new solution. It all points towards IO and ZFS. Couple of questions relating to ZFS. 1. What is the impace on using ZFS compression ? Percentage of system resources required, how much of a overhead is this as suppose to non-compression. In our case DB2 do similar amount of read's and writes. 2. Unfortunately we are using twice RAID (San level Raid and RaidZ) to overcome the panic problem my previous blog (for which I had good response). 3. Any way of monitoring ZFS performance other than iostat ? 4. Any help on ZFS tuning in this kind of environment like caching etc ? Would appreciate for any feedback/help wher to go next. If this cannot be resolved we may have to go back to VXFS which would be a shame. Thanks in advance. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS test suite released on OpenSolaris.org
The ZFS test suite is being released today on OpenSolaris.org along with the Solaris Test Framework (STF), Checkenv and Runwattr test tools. The source tarball, binary package and baseline can be downloaded from the test consolidation download center at http://dlc.sun.com/osol/test/downloads/current. And, the source code can be viewed in the Solaris Test Collection (STC) 2.0 source tree at: http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/test/ontest-stc2/src/suites/zfs. The STF, Checkenv and Runwattr packages must be installed prior to executing a ZFS test run. More information is available in the ZFS README file and on the ZFS test suite webpage at: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/zfstestsuite. Any questions about the ZFS test suite can be sent to zfs discuss at: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/discussions. Any questions about STF, and the test tools can be sent to testing discuss at: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/testing/discussions. Happy Hunting, Jim This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS - DB2 Performance
On 6/26/07, Roshan Perera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 25K 12 CPU dual core x 1800Mhz with ZFS 8TB storage SAN storage (compressed RaidZ) Solaris 10. RaidZ is a poor choice for database apps in my opinion; due to the way it handles checksums on raidz stripes, it must read every disk in order to satisfy small reads that traditional raid-5 would only have to read a single disk for. Raid-Z doesn't have the terrible write performance of raid 5, because you can stick small writes together and then do full-stripe writes, but by the same token you must do full-stripe reads, all the time. That's how I understand it, anyways. Thus, raidz is a poor choice for a database application which tends to do a lot of small reads. Using mirrors (at the zfs level, not the SAN level) would probably help with this. Mirrors each get their own copy of the data, each with its own checksum, so you can read a small block by touching only one disk. What is your vdev setup like right now? 'zpool list', in other words. How wide are your stripes? Is the SAN doing raid-1ish things with the disks, or something else? 2. Unfortunately we are using twice RAID (San level Raid and RaidZ) to overcome the panic problem my previous blog (for which I had good response). Can you convince the customer to give ZFS a chance to do things its way? Let the SAN export raw disks, and make two- or three-way mirrored vdevs out of them. 3. Any way of monitoring ZFS performance other than iostat ? In a word, yes. What are you interested in? DTrace or 'zpool iostat' (which reports activity of individual disks within the pool) may prove interesting. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS usb keys
I used a zpool on a usb key today to get some core files off a non-networked Thumper running S10U4 beta. Plugging the stick into my SXCE b61 x86 machine worked fine; I just had to 'zpool import sticky' and it worked ok. But when we attach the drive to a blade 100 (running s10u3), it sees the pool as corrupt. I thought I'd been too hasty pulling out the stick, but it works ok back in the b61 desktop and Thumper. I'm trying to figure out if this is an endian thing (which I thought ZFS was immune from) - or has the b61 machine upgraded the zpool format? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS - DB2 Performance
Hi Will, Thanks for your reply. Customer has EMC San solution and will not change their current layout. Therefore, asking the customer to give RAW disks to ZFS is no no. Hence, the RaidZ configuration as suppose to Raid - 5. I have given some stats below. I know its a bit difficult to troubleshoot with the type of data you have. But whatever input would be muchly appreciated. zpool list NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT datapool1 2.12T707G 1.43T32% ONLINE - datapool2 2.12T706G 1.44T32% ONLINE - datapool3 2.12T702G 1.44T32% ONLINE - datapool4 2.12T701G 1.44T32% ONLINE - dumppool272G171G101G62% ONLINE - localpool68G 12.5G 55.5G18% ONLINE - logpool 272G157G115G57% ONLINE - zfs get all datapool1 NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE datapool1type filesystem - datapool1creation Fri Jun 8 18:46 2007 - datapool1used 615G - datapool1available 1.22T - datapool1referenced 42.6K - datapool1compressratio 2.08x - datapool1mountedno - datapool1quota none default datapool1reservationnone default datapool1recordsize 128K default datapool1mountpoint none local datapool1sharenfs offdefault datapool1checksum on default datapool1compressionon local datapool1atime on default datapool1deviceson default datapool1exec on default datapool1setuid on default datapool1readonly offdefault datapool1zoned offdefault datapool1snapdirhidden default datapool1aclmodegroupmask default datapool1aclinherit secure default [su621dwdb/root] zpool status -v pool: datapool1 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM datapool1ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower8h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower9h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower10h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower11h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower12h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower13h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower14h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower15h ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors pool: datapool2 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM datapool2ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower16h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower17h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower18h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower19h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower20h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower21h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower22h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower23h ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors pool: datapool3 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM datapool3ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower24h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower25h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower26h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower27h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower28h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower29h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower30h ONLINE 0 0 0 emcpower31h ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors pool: datapool4 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM datapool4ONLINE 0
Re: [zfs-discuss] Suggestions on 30 drive configuration?
an array of 30 drives in a RaidZ2 configuration with two hot spares I don't want to mirror 15 drives to 15 drives ok, so space over speed... and are willing to toss somewhere between 4 and 15 drives for protection. raidz splits the (up to 128k) write/read recordsize into each element of the raidz set.. (ie: all drives must be touched and all must finish before the block request is complete) so with a 9 disk raid1z set that's (8 data + 1 parity (8+1)) or 16k per disk for a full 128k write. or for a smaller 4k block, that a single 512b sector per disk. on a 26+2 raid2z set that 4k block would still use 8 disks, with the other 18 disks unneeded but allocated. so perhaps three sets of 8+2 would let three blocks be read/written to at once with a total of 6 disks for protection. but for twice the speed, six sets of 4+1 would be the same size, (same number of disks for protection) but isn't quite as safe for its 2x speed. Rob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS usb keys
I used a zpool on a usb key today to get some core files off a non-networked Thumper running S10U4 beta. Plugging the stick into my SXCE b61 x86 machine worked fine; I just had to 'zpool import sticky' and it worked ok. But when we attach the drive to a blade 100 (running s10u3), it sees the pool as corrupt. I thought I'd been too hasty pulling out the stick, but it works ok back in the b61 desktop and Thumper. I'm trying to figure out if this is an endian thing (which I thought ZFS was immune from) - or has the b61 machine upgraded the zpool format? Most likely the zpool on the usb stick was formatted using a zpool version that s10u3 does not yet support. Check with zpool version on the b61 machine which zpool version is supported by b61, any which zpool version is on the usb stick. Repeat on the s10u3 machine. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
RE: [zfs-discuss] ZFS - DB2 Performance
At what Solaris10 level (patch/update) was the single-threaded compression situation resolved? Could you be hitting that one? -- MikeE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roch - PAE Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:26 PM To: Roshan Perera Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS - DB2 Performance Possibly the storage is flushing the write caches when it should not. Until we get a fix, cache flushing could be disabled in the storage (ask the vendor for the magic incantation). If that's not forthcoming and if all pools are attached to NVRAM protected devices; then these /etc/system evil tunable might help : In older solaris releases we have set zfs:zil_noflush = 1 On newer releases set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush = 1 If you implement this, Do place a comment that this is a temporary workaround waiting for bug 6462690 to be fixed. About Compression, I don't have the numbers but a reasonable guess would be that it can consumes roughly 1-Ghz of CPU to compress 100MB/sec. This will of course depend on the type of data being compressed. -r Roshan Perera writes: Hi all, I am after some help/feedback to the subject issue explained below. We are in the process of migrating a big DB2 database from a 6900 24 x 200MHz CPU's with Veritas FS 8TB of storage Solaris 8 to 25K 12 CPU dual core x 1800Mhz with ZFS 8TB storage SAN storage (compressed RaidZ) Solaris 10. Unfortunately, we are having massive perfomance problems with the new solution. It all points towards IO and ZFS. Couple of questions relating to ZFS. 1. What is the impace on using ZFS compression ? Percentage of system resources required, how much of a overhead is this as suppose to non-compression. In our case DB2 do similar amount of read's and writes. 2. Unfortunately we are using twice RAID (San level Raid and RaidZ) to overcome the panic problem my previous blog (for which I had good response). 3. Any way of monitoring ZFS performance other than iostat ? 4. Any help on ZFS tuning in this kind of environment like caching etc ? Would appreciate for any feedback/help wher to go next. If this cannot be resolved we may have to go back to VXFS which would be a shame. Thanks in advance. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Drive Failure w/o Redundancy
Hi. I'm looking for the best solution to create an expandable heterogeneous pool of drives. I think in an ideal world, there'd be a raid version which could cleverly handle both multiple drive sizes and the addition of new drives into a group (so one could drop in a new drive of arbitrary size, maintain some redundancy, and gain most of that drive's capacity), but my impression is that we're far from there. Absent that, I was considering using zfs and just having a single pool. My main question is this: what is the failure mode of zfs if one of those drives either fails completely or has errors? Do I permanently lose access to the entire pool? Can I attempt to read other data? Can I zfs replace the bad drive and get some level of data recovery? Otherwise, by pooling drives am I simply increasing the probability of a catastrophic data loss? I apologize if this is addressed elsewhere -- I've read a bunch about zfs, but not come across this particular answer. As a side-question, does anyone have a suggestion for an intelligent way to approach this goal? This is not mission-critical data, but I'd prefer not to make data loss _more_ probable. Perhaps some volume manager (like LVM on linux) has appropriate features? Thanks for any help. -puk This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS - DB2 Performance
Roshan Perera writes: Hi all, I am after some help/feedback to the subject issue explained below. We are in the process of migrating a big DB2 database from a 6900 24 x 200MHz CPU's with Veritas FS 8TB of storage Solaris 8 to 25K 12 CPU dual core x 1800Mhz with ZFS 8TB storage SAN storage (compressed RaidZ) Solaris 10. 200Mhz !? You mean 1200Mhz ;) The slowest CPU's in a 6900 was 900Mhz III Cu. You mention Veritas FS ... as in Veritas filesystem, vxfs ? I suppose you also include vmsa or the whole Storage Foundation? (could still be vxva on Solaris 8 ! Oh, those were the days...) First impressions on the system is ... well, it's fair to say that you have some extra CPU power (and then some). The old III 1.2Ghz was nice but by no means screamers. ( years ago) Unfortunately, we are having massive perfomance problems with the new solution. It all points towards IO and ZFS. Yep... CPU it isn't. Keep in mind that you have now completely moved the goal posts when it comes to performance or comparing performance with the previous installation. Not only do you have a large increase in CPU performance, Solaris 10 will blitz 8 on a bad day by miles. With all of the CPU/OS bottlenecks removed I sure hope you have decent I/O at the back... Couple of questions relating to ZFS. 1. What is the impace on using ZFS compression ? Percentage of system resources required, how much of a overhead is this as suppose to non-compression. In our case DB2 do similar amount of read's and writes. I'm unsure as to why a person that buys a 24 core 25K would activate compression on a OLTP database? Surely when you fork out that kind of cash you want to get every bang for your buck (and then some!). I don't think compression was created with the view on high performance OLTP db's. I would hope that the 25K (which in this case is light years faster than the 6900) wasn't spec'ed with the idea of running compression with the extra CPU cycles... oooh... *crash* *burn*. 2. Unfortunately we are using twice RAID (San level Raid and RaidZ) to overcome the panic problem my previous blog (for which I had good response). I've yet to deploy a DB on ZFS in production, so I cannot comment on the real world performance.. what I can comment on is some basic things. RAID on top of RAID seems silly. Especially RAID-Z. It's just not as fast as a mirror or stripe when it comes to a decent db workout. Are you sure that you want to go with ZFS ... any real reason to go that way now? I would wait for U4 ... and give the machine/storage a good workout with SVM and UFS/DirectIO. Yep... it's a bastard to manage but very little can touch it when it comes to pure performance. With so many $$$ standing on the datacentre floor, I'd forget about technology for now and let common sense and good business practice prevail. 3. Any way of monitoring ZFS performance other than iostat ? Dtrace guru's can comment... however iostat should suffice. 4. Any help on ZFS tuning in this kind of environment like caching etc ? As was posted, read the blog on ZFS and db's. Would appreciate for any feedback/help wher to go next. If this cannot be resolved we may have to go back to VXFS which would be a shame. By the way ... if the client has already purchased vmsa/vxfs (oh my word, how much was that!) then I'm unsure as to what ZFS will bring to the party... apart from saving the yearly $$$ for updates and patches/support. Is that the idea? It's not like SF is bad... Nope, 8TB on a decent configured storage unit is not that big _not_ to give it a go with SVM, especially if you want to save money on Storage Foundation. I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted here but DB performance and problems will usually reside inside the storage architecture... I've seldom found a system wanting in the CPU department if the architect wasn't a moron. With the upgrade that I see here... all the pressure will move to the back (bar a bad configuration) If you want to speed up a regular OLTP DB... fiddle with the I/O :) 2c ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Drive Failure w/o Redundancy
Jef Pearlman wrote: Hi. I'm looking for the best solution to create an expandable heterogeneous pool of drives. I think in an ideal world, there'd be a raid version which could cleverly handle both multiple drive sizes and the addition of new drives into a group (so one could drop in a new drive of arbitrary size, maintain some redundancy, and gain most of that drive's capacity), but my impression is that we're far from there. Mirroring (aka RAID-1, though technically more like RAID-1+0) in ZFS will do this. Absent that, I was considering using zfs and just having a single pool. My main question is this: what is the failure mode of zfs if one of those drives either fails completely or has errors? Do I permanently lose access to the entire pool? Can I attempt to read other data? Can I zfs replace the bad drive and get some level of data recovery? Otherwise, by pooling drives am I simply increasing the probability of a catastrophic data loss? I apologize if this is addressed elsewhere -- I've read a bunch about zfs, but not come across this particular answer. We generally recommend a single pool, as long as the use case permits. But I think you are confused about what a zpool is. I suggest you look at the examples or docs. A good overview is the slide show http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfs_last.pdf As a side-question, does anyone have a suggestion for an intelligent way to approach this goal? This is not mission-critical data, but I'd prefer not to make data loss _more_ probable. Perhaps some volume manager (like LVM on linux) has appropriate features? ZFS, mirrored pool will be the most performant and easiest to manage with better RAS than a raidz pool. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: zfs and 2530 jbod
Hi folks, So the expansion unit for the 2500 series is the 2501. The back-end drive channels are SAS. Currently it is not supported to connect a 2501 directly to a SAS HBA. SATA drives are in the pipe, but will not be released until the RAID firmware for the 2500 series officially supports the SATA drives. The current firmware does not lock out those drives and prematurely releasing the drives would result in lots of service calls for unsupported configurations. The 750GB and 1TB drives are on the map behind the initial release of SATA support. The 2500 series engineering team is talking with the ZFS folks to understand the various aspects of delivering a complete solution. (There is a lot more to it than it seems to work...). -Joel This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] NFS, nested ZFS filesystems and ownership
Hello, I'm sure there is a simple solution, but I am unable to figure this one out. Assuming I have tank/fs, tank/fs/fs1, tank/fs/fs2, and I set sharenfs=on for tank/fs (child filesystems are inheriting it as well), and I chown user:group /tank/fs, /tank/fs/fs1 and /tank/fs/fs2, I see: ls -la /tank/fs user:group . user:group fs1 user:group fs2 user:group some_other_file If I mount server:/tank/fs /tmp/mount from another machine, I see: ls -la /tmp/mount user:group . root:wheel fs1 root:wheel fs2 user:group some_other_file How can I get user:group to propagate down the nested ZFS filesystem over NFS? Thanks, Marko ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS+NFS on storedge 6120 (sun t4)
I am pretty sure the T3/6120/6320 firmware does not support the SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE commands.. Off the top of my head, I do not know if that triggers any change in behavior on the Solaris side... The firmware does support the use of the FUA bit...which would potentially lead to similar flushing behavior... I will try to check in my infinite spare time... -Joel This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS delegation script
Nicolas Williams wrote: Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see attachment. Nico The *real* ZFS delegation code was integrated into Nevada this morning. I've placed a little overview in my blog. http://blogs.sun.com/marks -Mark ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS delegation script
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:19:03PM -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: Nicolas Williams wrote: Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see attachment. The *real* ZFS delegation code was integrated into Nevada this morning. I've placed a little overview in my blog. http://blogs.sun.com/marks Yup. I'd written my script a while back but had left it unfinished. Fortunately I only spent a couple of hours on Friday finishing it up, but I really should have checked when ZFS delegation was scheduled to integrate (actually, I did ask on #onnv, but the only answer I got was not soon enough! :) Perhaps folks may find this script useful for pre-updated systems. (Speaking of which, what S10 update will ZFS delegation be rolled into?) Nico -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS delegation script
Oh, and thanks! ZFS delegations rocks. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: NFS, nested ZFS filesystems and ownership
I figured out how to get it to work, but I still don't quite understand it. The way i got it to work is to zfs unmount tank/fs/fs1 and tank/fs/fs2, and then it looked like this: ls -la /tank/fs user:group . root:root fs1 root:root fs2 That is, those mountpoints changed to root:root from user:group that was in effect while it was mounted. This I don't understand - what is determining this? How did zfs know to change this to user:group after zfs mount -a on local filesystem? Does ZFS inherit parent directory ownership at time of mounting, regardless of ownership of mountpoint? Does NFS respect ownership of underlying mountpoint, regardless of how ZFS is mounting it? I would appreciate an explanation or pointing to appropriate documentation. In any case, I would expect that reasonable behavour would be for both local ZFS filesystem hierarchy and the view of the same over NFS to display same ownership (user:group in question exists on both machines, and client is Mac OSX 10.4.9) Marko On 6/26/07, Marko Milisavljevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'm sure there is a simple solution, but I am unable to figure this one out. Assuming I have tank/fs, tank/fs/fs1, tank/fs/fs2, and I set sharenfs=on for tank/fs (child filesystems are inheriting it as well), and I chown user:group /tank/fs, /tank/fs/fs1 and /tank/fs/fs2, I see: ls -la /tank/fs user:group . user:group fs1 user:group fs2 user:group some_other_file If I mount server:/tank/fs /tmp/mount from another machine, I see: ls -la /tmp/mount user:group . root:wheel fs1 root:wheel fs2 user:group some_other_file How can I get user:group to propagate down the nested ZFS filesystem over NFS? Thanks, Marko ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS delegation script
Nicolas Williams wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:31:28PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:18:05PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see attachment. I forgot to slap on the CDDL header... And I forgot to add a -p option here: #!/bin/ksh That should be: #!/bin/ksh -p Uhm... that's no longer needed for /usr/bin/ksh in Solaris 10 and ksh93 never needed it. Note that this script is not intended to be secure, just to keep honest people honest and from making certain mistakes. Setuid-scripts (which this isn't quite) are difficult to make secure. Uhm... why ? You only have to make sure the users can't inject data/code. David Korn provided some guidelines for such cases, see http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/shell-discuss/2007-June/000493.html (mainly avoid eval, put all variable expensions in quotes, set IFS= at the beginning of the script and harden your script against unexpected input (classical example is $ myscript $(cat /usr/bin/cat) # (e.g. the attempt to pass a giant binary string as argument))) ... and I am currently working on a new shell code style guideline at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/shell/shellstyle/ with more stuff. Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, CJAVASunUnix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS usb keys
Shouldn't S10u3 just see the newer on-disk format and report that fact, rather than complain it is corrupt? Andrew. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS delegation script
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:55:15AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote: Nicolas Williams wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:31:28PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:18:05PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see attachment. I forgot to slap on the CDDL header... And I forgot to add a -p option here: #!/bin/ksh That should be: #!/bin/ksh -p Uhm... that's no longer needed for /usr/bin/ksh in Solaris 10 and ksh93 never needed it. But will ksh or ksh93 know that this script must not source $ENV? Apparently ksh won't source it anyways; this was not clear from the man page. Note that in the RBAC profile for this script the script gets run with privs=all, not euid=0, so checking that euid == uid is not sufficient. Note that this script is not intended to be secure, just to keep honest people honest and from making certain mistakes. Setuid-scripts (which this isn't quite) are difficult to make secure. Uhm... why ? You only have to make sure the users can't inject data/code. David Korn provided some guidelines for such cases, see http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/shell-discuss/2007-June/000493.html (mainly avoid eval, put all variable expensions in quotes, set IFS= at the beginning of the script and harden your script against unexpected input (classical example is $ myscript $(cat /usr/bin/cat) # (e.g. the attempt to pass a giant binary string as argument))) ... and I am currently working on a new shell code style guideline at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/shell/shellstyle/ with more stuff. As you can see the script quotes user arguments throughout. It's probably secure -- what I meant is that I make no guarantees about this script :) Nico -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: NFS, nested ZFS filesystems and ownership
Well, I didn't realize this at first because I was testing with newly empty directories and sorry about wasting the bandwidth here, but it apprears NFS is not showing nested ZFS filesystems *at all*, all I was seing is mountpoints of the parent filesystem, and their changing ownership as server was mounting and unmounting child filesystems locally. I see nothing in zfs or mount commands that would allow me to recursively propagate my NFS mount to display hierarchy created by ZFS on server side. Is this at all possible or NFS and nested ZFS filesystems don't mix? And it seems to be a bug, but unless zfs set sharenfs=on is explicitly set on a filesystem (even though it is already inherited as on, and shows as such in zfs list -o name,sharenfs), it does not appear in share command output nor can it be mounted by the NFS client - gives permission error. Marko On 6/26/07, Marko Milisavljevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I figured out how to get it to work, but I still don't quite understand it. The way i got it to work is to zfs unmount tank/fs/fs1 and tank/fs/fs2, and then it looked like this: ls -la /tank/fs user:group . root:root fs1 root:root fs2 That is, those mountpoints changed to root:root from user:group that was in effect while it was mounted. This I don't understand - what is determining this? How did zfs know to change this to user:group after zfs mount -a on local filesystem? Does ZFS inherit parent directory ownership at time of mounting, regardless of ownership of mountpoint? Does NFS respect ownership of underlying mountpoint, regardless of how ZFS is mounting it? I would appreciate an explanation or pointing to appropriate documentation. In any case, I would expect that reasonable behavour would be for both local ZFS filesystem hierarchy and the view of the same over NFS to display same ownership (user:group in question exists on both machines, and client is Mac OSX 10.4.9) Marko On 6/26/07, Marko Milisavljevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'm sure there is a simple solution, but I am unable to figure this one out. Assuming I have tank/fs, tank/fs/fs1, tank/fs/fs2, and I set sharenfs=on for tank/fs (child filesystems are inheriting it as well), and I chown user:group /tank/fs, /tank/fs/fs1 and /tank/fs/fs2, I see: ls -la /tank/fs user:group . user:group fs1 user:group fs2 user:group some_other_file If I mount server:/tank/fs /tmp/mount from another machine, I see: ls -la /tmp/mount user:group . root:wheel fs1 root:wheel fs2 user:group some_other_file How can I get user:group to propagate down the nested ZFS filesystem over NFS? Thanks, Marko ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS delegation script
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:55:15AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:31:28PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:18:05PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see
attachment.
I forgot to slap on the CDDL header...
And I forgot to add a -p option here:
#!/bin/ksh
That should be:
#!/bin/ksh -p
Uhm... that's no longer needed for /usr/bin/ksh in Solaris 10 and ksh93
never needed it.
But will ksh or ksh93 know that this script must not source $ENV?
Erm, I don't know what's the correct behaviour for Solaris ksh88... but
for ksh93 it's clearly defined that ${ENV} and /etc/ksh.kshrc are only
sourced for _interactive_ shell sessions by default - and that excludes
non-interactive scripts.
Apparently ksh won't source it anyways; this was not clear from the man
page.
Note that in the RBAC profile for this script the script gets run with
privs=all, not euid=0, so checking that euid == uid is not sufficient.
What do you mean with that ?
Note that this script is not intended to be secure, just to keep honest
people honest and from making certain mistakes. Setuid-scripts (which
this isn't quite) are difficult to make secure.
Uhm... why ? You only have to make sure the users can't inject
data/code. David Korn provided some guidelines for such cases, see
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/shell-discuss/2007-June/000493.html
(mainly avoid eval, put all variable expensions in quotes, set IFS= at
the beginning of the script and harden your script against unexpected
input (classical example is $ myscript $(cat /usr/bin/cat) # (e.g. the
attempt to pass a giant binary string as argument))) ... and I am
currently working on a new shell code style guideline at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/shell/shellstyle/ with more stuff.
As you can see the script quotes user arguments throughout. It's
probably secure -- what I meant is that I make no guarantees about this
script :)
Yes... I saw that... and I realised that the new ksh93 getopts, pattern
matching (e.g. [[ ${pat} == ~(Ei).*myregex.* ]] to replace something
like [ $(echo ${pat} | egrep -i .*myregex.*) != ] ) and
associative arrays (e.g. use string as index instead of numbers) would
be usefull for this script.
Anyway... the script looks good... I wish the script code in OS/Net
Makefiles would have that quality... ;-/
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, CJAVASunUnix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS delegation script
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:45:07AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
But will ksh or ksh93 know that this script must not source $ENV?
Erm, I don't know what's the correct behaviour for Solaris ksh88... but
for ksh93 it's clearly defined that ${ENV} and /etc/ksh.kshrc are only
sourced for _interactive_ shell sessions by default - and that excludes
non-interactive scripts.
Right, and I'd forgotten that, and when I glanced at the manpage,
nervous that I'd might have missed a ksh option that's important for
setuid scripts, it was not obvious that this was indeed the case.
Apparently ksh won't source it anyways; this was not clear from the man
page.
Note that in the RBAC profile for this script the script gets run with
privs=all, not euid=0, so checking that euid == uid is not sufficient.
What do you mean with that ?
Read the part of the script that deals with the 'setup' sub-command.
As you can see the script quotes user arguments throughout. It's
probably secure -- what I meant is that I make no guarantees about this
script :)
Yes... I saw that... and I realised that the new ksh93 getopts, pattern
matching (e.g. [[ ${pat} == ~(Ei).*myregex.* ]] to replace something
like [ $(echo ${pat} | egrep -i .*myregex.*) != ] ) and
associative arrays (e.g. use string as index instead of numbers) would
be usefull for this script.
Indeed. I can't tell you how many times I've wished that Solaris had
had ksh93 back in, well, 1993 :) Although, I must say that I *like* KSH
globs quite a bit, enough so that I'd not resort to regexps in a ksh93
script unless I had to match patterns that were not easily expressible
as KSH globs. And I like KSH variable substitution transformations like
${var%pattern} and so on (though, again, I wish ksh88 had a few more
extensions of that sort).
Nico
--
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
