I want to know, if anybody can check/confirm the following issue I observed
with a fully patched Solaris 10 u2 with ZFS running on IDE disks and how the
state of the IDE/ZFS issue is in general in the development of OpenSolaris
resp. Nevada:
I have observed the following issue: when I try to
the remaining, now aside from sub directories empty directories are r=
emoved silently and successfully. And this is exactly okay when using=
the -depth option only, because this guarantees the right director=
y traversal, where the exec is applied only on the leaves first and a=
fterwards on
Check the permission of your mountpoint after you unmount the dataset.
Most likely, you have something like rwx--.
On 10/5/06, Stefan Urbat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to know, if anybody can check/confirm the following issue I observed
with a fully patched Solaris 10 u2 with ZFS
On 10/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unmount all the ZFS filesystems and check the permissions on the mount
points and the paths leading up to them.
I experienced the same problem and narrowed it down to that
essentially, chdir(..) in rm -rf failed to ascend up the
directory.
On 10/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unmount all the ZFS filesystems and check the permissions on the mount
points and the paths leading up to them.
I experienced the same problem and narrowed it down to that
essentially, chdir(..) in rm -rf failed to ascend up the
directory.
On 10/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Should ZFS respect the umask setting even when it
is creating the mountpoint?
No (I think this is being fixed).
Nice to hear, this is a very strange phenomenon as told.
- Should Solaris (in general) ignore mountpoint
I have just recently (physically) moved a system with 16 hard drives (for the
array) and 1 OS drive; and in doing so, I needed to pull out the 16 drives so
that it would be light enough for me to lift.
When I plugged the drives back in, initially, it went into a panic-reboot loop.
After doing
Hello Ewen,
Thursday, October 5, 2006, 11:13:04 AM, you wrote:
Can you post at least panic info?
--
Best regards,
Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://milek.blogspot.com
___
You were completely right in guessing the issue: after umount /export/home the
ZFS residing there the wrong (?), but likely standard Solaris 10, not ufs
affecting attribute mask was visible: 700. After changing this to 755 and
mounting the ZFS thereon again, the issue was resolved completely.
Not an really good subject, I know but that's kind of what happend.
I'm trying to build an backup-solution server, Windows users using OSCAR (which
uses rsync) to sync their files to an folder and when complete takes a
snapshot. It has worked before but then I turned on the -R switch to rsync
11/06 is just around the corner! What new ZFS features are going to
make it into that release?
-brian
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
would it possible to use ZFS snapshot as way
to doing hot backup for oracle database?
anybody have tried that?
Thanks.
Jason
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:04:49AM -0400, Zhisong Jin wrote:
would it possible to use ZFS snapshot as way
to doing hot backup for oracle database?
anybody have tried that?
You would need to put the tablespaces with data files on the filesystem
being snapped into backup mode while you take
What would versioning of files in ZFS buy us over a zfs snapshots +
cron solution?
I can think of one:
1. The usefulness of the ability to get the prior version of anything
at all (as richlowe puts it)
Any others?
--
Regards,
Jeremy
___
zfs-discuss
Hi Brian,
See the previous posting about this below.
You can read about these features in the ZFS Admin Guide.
Cheers,
Cindy
Subject: Solaris 10 ZFS Update
From: George Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:51:09 -0400
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
We have putback a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cindy Swearingen wrote:
See the previous posting about this below.
You can read about these features in the ZFS Admin Guide.
I miss the can remove a vdev if there is enough free space to move data
around :-(.
What about ZFS root?. And
What about ZFS root?. And compatibility with Live Upgrade?. Any
timetable estimation?.
ZFS root has been previously announced as targeted for update 4.
--
Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Technical Consultant TAOS
Dick Davies wrote:
Need a bit of help salvaging a perfectly working ZFS
mirror that I've managed to render unbootable.
I've had a ZFS root (x86, mirored zpool, SXCR b46 ) working fine for
months.
I very foolishly decided to mirror /grub using SVM
(so I could boot easily if a disk died).
Darren Dunham wrote:
What about ZFS root?. And compatibility with Live Upgrade?. Any
timetable estimation?.
ZFS root has been previously announced as targeted for update 4.
ZFS root support will most likely not be available in Solaris 10 until
update 5. (And of course this is subject to
Stefan Urbat wrote:
By the way, I have to wait a few hours to umount and check mountpoint
permissions, because an automated build is currently running on that
zfs --- the performance of [EMAIL PROTECTED] is indeed rather poor (much worse
than ufs), but this is another, already documented and bug
Ewen Chan wrote:
However, in order for me to lift the unit, I needed to pull the
drives out so that it would actually be moveable, and in doing so, I
think that the drive-cable-port allocation/assignment has
changed.
If that is the case, then ZFS would automatically figure out the new
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:19:19AM -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 10/5/06, Jeremy Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would a version FS buy us that cron+ zfs snapshots doesn't?
Finer granularity; no chance of missing a change.
TOPS-20 did this, and it was *tremendously* useful .
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:19:19AM -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 10/5/06, Jeremy Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would a version FS buy us that cron+ zfs snapshots doesn't?
Finer granularity; no chance of missing a change.
TOPS-20 did this, and it was
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:19:19AM -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 10/5/06, Jeremy Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would a version FS buy us that cron+ zfs snapshots doesn't?
Finer granularity; no chance of missing a change.
TOPS-20 did this, and it was
On 10/5/06, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doing versioning at the file-system layer allows block-level changes to
be stored, so it doesn't consume enormous amounts of extra space. In
fact, it's more efficient than any versioning software (CVS, SVN,
teamware, etc) for storing versions.
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 04:08:13PM -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
when you do your session-end cleanup. What the heck was that command
on TOPS-20 anyway? Maybe purge? Sorry, 20-year-old memories are
fuzzy on some details.
It's PURGE under VMS, so knowing DEC, it was named PURGE under
I've lucked into some big disks, so I'm thinking of biting the bullet
(screaming loudly in the process) and superceding the SATA controllers
on my motherboard with something that will work with hot-swap in
Solaris. (did I mention before I'm still pissed about this?) I have
enough to populate all
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 16:08 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 10/5/06, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doing versioning at the file-system layer allows block-level changes to
be stored, so it doesn't consume enormous amounts of extra space. In
fact, it's more efficient than any
A lot of this we're clearly not going to agree on and I've said what I
had to contribute. There's one remaining point, though...
On 10/5/06, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 16:08 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Actually, save early and often is exactly why
Jason asked me to forward his reply on to the list, so here it is.
Thanks, Jason, for the specifics! Very specific answers seem to be
what's needed in this situation.
-- Forwarded message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Oct 5, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: Re:
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 17:25 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Well, unless you have a better VCS than CVS or SVN. I first met this
as an obscure, buggy, expensive, short-lived SUN product, actually; I
believe it was called NSE, the Network Software Engineering
environment. And I used one
Jeremy,
The intended use of both are vastly different.
A snapshot is a point-in-time image of a file system that as you have
pointed out, may have missed several versions of changes regardless of
frequency.
Versioning (ala VAX -- ok, I feel old now) keeps versions of every
changes up to a
Casper Dik,
After my posting, I assumed that a code question should be
directed to the ZFS code alias, so I apologize to the people
show don't read code. However, since the discussion is here,
I will post a code proof here. Just use time program to get
a
On 10/6/06, David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the big problems with CVS and SVN and Microsoft SourceSafe is
that you don't have the benefits of version control most of the time,
because all commits are *public*.
David,
That is exactly what branch is for in CVS and SVN. Dunno
On October 5, 2006 5:25:17 PM -0700 David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, unless you have a better VCS than CVS or SVN. I first met this
as an obscure, buggy, expensive, short-lived SUN product, actually; I
believe it was called NSE, the Network Software Engineering
environment. And
On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
I find the unix conventions of storying a file and file~ or any
of the other myriad billion ways of doing it that each app has
invented to be much more unwieldy.
sorry, storing a file, not storying
---
Chad Leigh --
On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 5, 2006 5:25:17 PM -0700 David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
b.net wrote:
Well, unless you have a better VCS than CVS or SVN. I first met this
as an obscure, buggy, expensive, short-lived SUN product, actually; I
believe it was
On October 5, 2006 7:02:29 PM -0700 Chad Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 5, 2006 5:25:17 PM -0700 David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
b.net wrote:
Well, unless you have a better VCS than CVS or SVN. I first met this
as an obscure,
Hi,
Like what matt said, unless there is a bug in code, zfs should automatically
figure out the drive mappings. The real problem as I see is using 16 drives in
single raidz... which means if two drives malfunction, you're out of luck.
(raidz2 would survive 2 drives... but still I believe 16
In the instructions, it says that the system retains a copy of the zpool cache
in /etc/zfs/zpool.cache.
It also said that when the system boots up, it looks to that to try and mount
the pool, so to get out of the panic-reboot look, it said to delete that file.
Well, I retained a copy of it
Hi Mitchell,
I do work for Sun, but I don't consider myself biased towards the slab
allocator or any other Solaris or Sun code. I know we've got plenty of
improvements to make!
That said, your example is not multi-threaded. There are two major performance
issues which come up with a list
41 matches
Mail list logo
