Hi Folks,
I've got a 3.9 Tb zpool, and it is casing kernel panics on my Solaris
10 280r (SPARC) server.
The message I get on panic is this:
panic[cpu1]/thread=2a100a95cc0: zfs: freeing free segment
(offset=423713792 size=1024)
This seems to come about when the zpool is being used or being
grand-dad,
why don't you put your immense experience and knowledge to contribute
to what is going to be
the next and only filesystems in modern operating systems, instead of
spending your time asking for specifics and treating everyone of
ignorant..at least we will remember you in the after
can you guess? wrote:
can you guess? wrote:
can you run a database on RMS?
As well as you could on must Unix file systems.
And you've been able to do so for almost three
decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and
direct I/O are relative newcomers in the
Anyone tried to use ZFS with this type of box ? . The new thing about this
one is that
it contains a1x eSATA to 4x SATA Port multipler
http://www.stardom.com.tw/sohotank%20st5610-4s-sb2.htm
//Lars
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Edward Irvine wrote:
Hi Folks,
I've got a 3.9 Tb zpool, and it is casing kernel panics on my Solaris
10 280r (SPARC) server.
The message I get on panic is this:
panic[cpu1]/thread=2a100a95cc0: zfs: freeing free segment
(offset=423713792 size=1024)
This seems to come about when
Lars Tunkrans wrote:
Anyone tried to use ZFS with this type of box ? . The new thing about this
one is that
it contains a1x eSATA to 4x SATA Port multipler
http://www.stardom.com.tw/sohotank%20st5610-4s-sb2.htm
There won't be a ZFS issue; ZFS talks to any kind of Solaris
Last I had heard, there was no solaris support for port multipliers yet, but I
believe that they plan on supporting it in the future. That said, I think that
the FreeBSD port fully supports it now as well as FUSE on Linux. This isn't
really a zfs issue, but more of a driver issue.
The other
Lars Tunkrans wrote:
Anyone tried to use ZFS with this type of box ? . The new thing about this
one is that
it contains a1x eSATA to 4x SATA Port multipler
http://www.stardom.com.tw/sohotank%20st5610-4s-sb2.htm
Hi Lars,
we don't currently have support for SATA port
Which 8 bay external case did you end up using?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hi,
Can anybody explain the reason that zpool is completely destroyed and must be
restored from tape after is hitting the bug 6458218?
Also, why most of the machines are OK just one so far (but very high profile)
was hit?
Is this not the matter of if, but when we get hit...until we upgrade?
Is
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I'm interested in the same question. I'm looking at what to use for
backup from my Solaris file server. I've had rather bad experiences
with external Firewire and USB disks, especially in performance (can't
be absolutely sure the problem isn't with Windows there,
...
I remember trying to help customers move
their
applications from
TOPS-20 to VMS, back in the early 1980s, and
finding
that the VMS I/O
capabilities were really badly lacking.
Funny how that works: when you're not familiar
with something, you often mistake your own
why don't you put your immense experience and
knowledge to contribute
to what is going to be
the next and only filesystems in modern operating
systems,
Ah - the pungent aroma of teenage fanboy wafts across the Net.
ZFS is not nearly good enough to become what you suggest above, nor is it
Richard Elling wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I'm interested in the same question. I'm looking at what to use for
backup from my Solaris file server. I've had rather bad experiences
with external Firewire and USB disks, especially in performance
(can't be absolutely sure the problem
Hi Robert,
Thanks it worked like a charm.
--Walter
On Dec 7, 2007 7:33 AM, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Walter,
Thursday, December 6, 2007, 7:05:54 PM, you wrote:
Hi All,
We are currently a hardware issue with our zfs file server hence the file
system is
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Jorgen,
Honestly - I don't think zfs is a good solution to your problem.
What you could try to do however when it comes to x4500 is:
1. Use SVM+UFS+user quotas
I am now trying zfs -V 1Tb and newfs'ed ufs on that device. This looks
like a potential
So I'm doing an rsync between a ZFS filesystem on local SATA disks and
an empty ZFS filesystem on a drive connected via USB 2.0. zpool iostat
is showing me a write bandwidth of about 30M. That does mean 30MB/sec,
right? That's compatible with how long the test took.
I used up 47368826
17 matches
Mail list logo
