Hi,
I am running solaris 10 on ufs and the rest on ZFS. Now has the solaris disk
crashed.
How can I recover the other ZFS disks?
Can I reinstall solaris and recreate the zfs systems without data loss?
Tore
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Sep 20, 2007, at 12:55 AM, Tore Johansson wrote:
Hi,
I am running solaris 10 on ufs and the rest on ZFS. Now has the
solaris disk crashed.
How can I recover the other ZFS disks?
Can I reinstall solaris and recreate the zfs systems without data
loss?
Zpool import is your friend.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roch - PAE wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim Mauro wrote:
Hey Max - Check out the on-disk specification document at
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/.
Page 32 illustration shows the rootbp pointing to a dnode_phys_t
Did you upgrade your pools? zpool upgrade -a
John-Paul Drawneek wrote:
err, I installed the patch and am still on zfs 3?
solaris 10 u3 with kernel patch 120011-14
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Sep 15, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Victor Latushkin wrote:
I'm proposing new project for ZFS community - Block Selection
Policy and
Space Map Enhancements.
+1.
I wonder if some of this could look into a dynamic policy. For
example, a policy that switches when the pool becomes too full.
a few comments below...
Paul B. Henson wrote:
We are looking for a replacement enterprise file system to handle storage
needs for our campus. For the past 10 years, we have been happily using DFS
(the distributed file system component of DCE), but unfortunately IBM
killed off that product and
Paul B. Henson wrote:
One issue I have is that our previous filesystem, DFS, completely spoiled
me with its global namespace and location transparency. We had three fairly
large servers, with the content evenly dispersed among them, but from the
perspective of the client any user's files were
On 9/20/07 3:49 PM, Paul B. Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
50,000 directories aren't a problem, unless you also need 50,000 quotas
and hence 50,000 file systems. Such a large, single storage pool system
will be an outlier... significantly beyond
Andy Lubel wrote:
On 9/20/07 3:49 PM, Paul B. Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
That would also be my preference, but if I were forced to use hardware
RAID, the additional loss of storage for ZFS redundancy would be painful.
Would anyone
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:49:29PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
50,000 directories aren't a problem, unless you also need 50,000 quotas
and hence 50,000 file systems. Such a large, single storage pool system
will be an outlier... significantly
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 16:22:45 -0500, Gary Mills wrote:
: You should consider a Netapp filer. It will do both NFS and CIFS,
: supports disk quotas, and is highly reliable. We use one for 30,000
: students and 3000 employees. Ours has never failed us.
And they might only lightly sue you for
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
This can be solved using an automounter as well.
Well, I'd say more kludged around than solved ;), but again unless
you've used DFS it might not seem that way.
It just seems rather involved, and relatively inefficient to continuously
be
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Andy Lubel wrote:
Looks like its completely scalable but your boot time may suffer the more
you have. Just don't reboot :)
I'm not sure if it's accurate, but the SE we were meeting with claimed that
we could failover all of the filesystems to one half of the cluster,
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
We are in a similar situation. It turns out that buying two thumpers is
cheaper per TB than buying more shelves for an IBM N7600. I don't know
about power/cooling considerations yet though.
It's really a completely different class of storage though,
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Gary Mills wrote:
You should consider a Netapp filer. It will do both NFS and CIFS,
supports disk quotas, and is highly reliable. We use one for 30,000
students and 3000 employees. Ours has never failed us.
We had actually just finished evaluating Netapp before I
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
We are in a similar situation. It turns out that buying two thumpers is
cheaper per TB than buying more shelves for an IBM N7600. I don't know
about power/cooling considerations yet though.
It's really a completely
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Dickon Hood wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 16:22:45 -0500, Gary Mills wrote:
: You should consider a Netapp filer. It will do both NFS and CIFS,
: supports disk quotas, and is highly reliable. We use one for 30,000
: students and 3000 employees. Ours has never failed
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
and due to the fact that snapshots counted toward ZFS quota, I decided
Yes, that does seem to remove a bit of their value for backup purposes. I
think they're planning to rectify that at some point in the future.
We're
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
It's an IBM re-branded NetApp which can which we are using for NFS and
iSCSI.
Ah, I see.
Is it comparable storage though? Does it use SATA drives similar to the
x4500, or more expensive/higher performance FC drives? Is it one of the
models that allows
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Kirby wrote:
We're adding a style of quota that only includes the bytes referenced by
the active fs. Also, there will be a matching style for reservations.
some point in the future is very soon (weeks). :-)
I don't think my management will let me run Solaris
yep.
but it said that the pools were upto date with the system on 3.
zpool upgrade says the system just has version 3
also patch 120272-12 has been pulled which 120011-14 depends on yay
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss
Paul B. Henson wrote:
Is it comparable storage though? Does it use SATA drives similar to the
x4500, or more expensive/higher performance FC drives? Is it one of the
models that allows connecting dual clustered heads and failing over the
storage between them?
I agree the x4500 is a sweet
John-Paul Drawneek wrote:
yep.
but it said that the pools were upto date with the system on 3.
zpool upgrade says the system just has version 3
also patch 120272-12 has been pulled which 120011-14 depends on yay
Yeah, the listed reason -- patch corrupts the snmpd.conf file causing
Mike,
I followed your procedure for cloning zones and it worked well up until
yesterday when I tried applying the S10U4 kernel patch 12001-14 and it wouldn't
apply because I had my zones on zfs :(
I'm still figuring out how to fix this other than moving all of my zones onto
UFS.
Anyone got
Matthew Flanagan wrote:
Mike,
I followed your procedure for cloning zones and it worked well up until
yesterday when I tried applying the S10U4 kernel patch 12001-14 and it
wouldn't apply because I had my zones on zfs :(
I'm still figuring out how to fix this other than moving all of my
On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Gary Mills wrote:
You should consider a Netapp filer. It will do both NFS and CIFS,
supports disk quotas, and is highly reliable. We use one for 30,000
students and 3000 employees. Ours has never failed us.
We had
26 matches
Mail list logo
