Hi Seigfried, just making sure you had seen this:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
You have very fast NFS to non-ZFS runs.
That seems only possible if the hosting OS did not sync the
data when NFS required it or the drive in question had some
fast write caches. If
I believe we should rather educate other people that st_size/24 is a bad
solution.
That's all well and good but fixing all clients, including potentially
really old ones, might not be feasible. Being correct doesn't help
our customers.
Casper
___
On 12 Jun 2007, at 03:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wondering if anyone at WWDC has poked around the kexts, etc. for ZFS.
It seemed oddly missing today at the keynote in light of last week's
announcement. Is it too early to announce it due to some functions
that are still being added and thus
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199903281
An Apple official on Monday said Sun Microsystems' open-source file
system would not be in the next version of the Mac operating system,
contradicting statements made last week by Sun's chief executive.
John
Graham
Yea, What is the deal with this? I am so bummed :( What the heck was Sun's CEO
talking about the other day? And why the heck did Apple not include at least
non-default ZFS support in Leopard? If no ZFS in Leapard, then what is all the
Apple-induced-hype about? A trapezoidal Dock table? A
Hi Doug,
I need more information:
You need /devices and /dev on zfs root to boot.
Right. But can I generate them automatically somehow on the next boot? I have
followed the instructions that loop-mount / and tar the contents of devices and
dev and untar them to the root pool. I just want
On 12-Jun-07, at 9:23 AM, Sunstar Dude wrote:
Yea, What is the deal with this? ...
Can anyone explain the absence of ZFS in Leopard??? I signed up for
this forum just to post this.
Steve giveth and Steve taketh away.
--Toby
This message posted from opensolaris.org
we know time machine requires an extra disk (local or remote) so its
reasonable to guess the non bootable time machine disk could use zfs.
someone with a Leopard dvd (Rick Mann) could answer this...
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Wow, alright... I'm wondering if there are still some top secret
items up Apple's sleeve. Someone just told me yesterday that
Microsoft had some tricks coming and that Apple not having a more
refulgent keynote was likely due to this. Ie, they want Microsoft to
tip their hand first prior to
Well, that sounds promising. But I just went to http://developer.apple.com ,
searched for ZFS, and got 0 results found.
jetforme, have you tried to locate the ZFS kext and install it? Any success?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Yeah this is pretty sad, we had such plans for actually using our apple
(PPC) hardware in our datacenter for something other than AFP and web
serving.
It also shows how limited apples vision seems to be. For 2 CEO's not to be
on the same page demonstrates that there is something else going on
On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Andy Lubel wrote:
Yeah this is pretty sad, we had such plans for actually using our
apple
(PPC) hardware in our datacenter for something other than AFP and web
serving.
It also shows how limited apples vision seems to be.
I think you are jumping to conclusions
Apple's strength is the desktop, Sun's is the datacenter.
There's no need to have ZFS on the desktop, just as there's no need to have
HFS+ in the datacenter.
There is a need to improve ZFS in the datacenter, however, and I wish Sun had
invested their time in getting dynamic LUN expansion going
Over NFS to non-ZFS drive
-
tar xfvj linux-2.6.21.tar.bz2
real5m0.211s, user0m45.330s, sys 0m50.118s
star xfv linux-2.6.21.tar.bz2
real3m26.053s, user0m43.069s, sys 0m33.726s
star -no-fsync -x -v -f linux-2.6.21.tar.bz2
real
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Robert Smicinski wrote:
Apple's strength is the desktop, Sun's is the datacenter.
Agreed, to a large extent.
There's no need to have ZFS on the desktop, just as there's no need
to have HFS+ in the datacenter.
I strongly disagree with the first clause of that sentence.
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:57 AM, Roch - PAE wrote:
Hi Seigfried, just making sure you had seen this:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
You have very fast NFS to non-ZFS runs.
That seems only possible if the hosting OS did not sync the
data when NFS required it or the
eric kustarz wrote:
Over NFS to non-ZFS drive
-
tar xfvj linux-2.6.21.tar.bz2
real5m0.211s,user0m45.330s,sys 0m50.118s
star xfv linux-2.6.21.tar.bz2
real3m26.053s,user0m43.069s,sys 0m33.726s
star -no-fsync -x -v -f
Group,
Isn't Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive
personal computer / small business environment?
IE, Plug and play.
Thus, even though ZFS is able to work as the default
FS, should it be the default FS for the small system
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:54 -0700, Erblichs wrote:
Group,
Isn't Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive
personal computer / small business environment?
IE, Plug and play.
Warning, real case to follow, not a what if scenario:
Over the past 10 years, I've been
On 12-Jun-07, at 1:54 PM, Erblichs wrote:
Group,
Isn't Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive
personal computer / small business environment?
IE, Plug and play.
Thus, even though ZFS is able to work as the default
FS, should it be the
Since the copy I have I did not get through normal channels, I don't have WWDC
access to the dev site, so I don't know if it's there or not. However, my
friend looked, and couldn't find it, either.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
I agree wholeheartedly. This ZFS is a must for desktop, small
business and enterprise. I've been hanging out in #zfs and reading
quite a bit over the last couple weeks and I will never trust my data
again unless I have ZFS in place. I look to transfer this to my
clients' setups as well somehow
I tried to add a third disk to the raidz array
The third disk didn't get added to the raidz array, it was added to the pool,
but 'parallel' to the raidz
This is because it is not currently possible to add disks to a
raidz/raidz2. Adding storage is typically done by adding an additional
The other day I posted about how I did a replace that I really should not
have done. I was advised to do a detach, which worked fine! Thanks for that!!
Today I rebooted the system and i find the zpool is doing a resilver:
pool: z_tsmsun1_raidpool
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices is
My guess is that Jonathan's WWDC pre-announcement last week is was probably why
there's no ZFS in the WWDC beta.
Anybody remember what happend to ATI when they did that? It wasn't good.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss
On June 12, 2007 12:08:05 PM -0700 Deron Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess is that Jonathan's WWDC pre-announcement last week is was
probably why there's no ZFS in the WWDC beta.
I'm sure the discs were made long before Jonathan's statement.
-frank
Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn't want ZFS in OS X - Solaris competition
- and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X that Steve Jobs would
drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this was intentionally done by Schwartz
to keep ZFS out of a competing OS. Just a thought.
Whatever
On 12-Jun-07, at 4:38 PM, Sunstar Dude wrote:
Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn't want ZFS in OS X - Solaris
competition - and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X
that Steve Jobs would drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this
was intentionally done by Schwartz to keep
Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn't want ZFS in OS X - Solaris competition
- and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X that Steve Jobs would
drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this was intentionally done by Schwartz
to keep ZFS out of a competing OS. Just a thought.
Whatever
I thought of a few options today, I was hoping someone could tell me what my
odds are of success.
1) That third disk had a copy of all my data on it before I added it to the
zpool. I'm thinking r-studio should be able to recover most of the stuff on
there. I'll lose a little bit of data, but
Ok.. never mind... the resilver says it completed... kind of odd...
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 12-Jun-07, at 6:50 PM, John wrote:
Ok.. never mind... the resilver says it completed... kind of odd...
My hunch is that, unlike a scrub, say, it's not something you'd
ordinarily want to stop?
--Toby
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Rick Mann wrote:
ZFS Readonly implemntation is loaded!
Is that a copy-n-paste error, or is that typo in the actual output?
Regards,
markm
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
So I just imported an old zpool onto this new system. The problem would be one
drive (c4d0) is showing up twice. First it's displayed as ONLINE, then it's
displayed as UNAVAIL. This is obviously causing a problem as the zpool now
thinks it's in a degraded state, even though all drives are
34 matches
Mail list logo
