Unfortunately, the T1000 only has a
single drive bay (!) which makes it impossible to
follow our normal practice of mirroring the root file
You can replace the existing 3.5 disk with two 2.5 disks (quite cheap)
//Mika
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Sounds familiar. Yes it is a small system a Sun blade 100 with 128MB of
memory.
Oh, 128MB...
Btw, does anyone know if there are any minimum hardware (physical memory)
requirements for using ZFS?
It seems as if ZFS wan't tested that much on machines with 256MB (or less)
I just retried to reproduce it to generate a reliable
test case. Unfortunately, I cannot reproduce the
error message. So I really have no idea what might
have cause it
I also had this problem 2-3 times in the past,
but I cannot reproduce it.
as an alternative, I thaught this would be relevant to the
discussion:
Bug ID: 6478980
Synopsis: zfs should support automount property
In other words, do we really need to mount 1 FS in a
snap, or do we just need to system to be up quickly then
mount on demand
-r
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 01:40 -0700, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Using dtrace against the kernel, I found out that the source
of the EBUSY error 16 is the kernel function zil_suspend():
.
.
It seems that you can identify zfs filesystems that fail
zfs snapshot with error 16 EBUSY using
zdb -iv
no UFS works fine, as well as VXFS 4.1. Is this something that Sun will
improve in the future?..
Edmundo
- Original Message -
From: Juergen Keil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss]
Also the funny part is that it takes the machine about a second to freeze
and I have to power cycle. I can't Stop-A, the machine becomes totally
unresponsive. Never seem that before on a Sun Server.
Edmundo
- Original Message -
From: Juergen Keil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Sounds familiar. Yes it is a small system a Sun blade 100 with 128MB of
memory.
Oh, 128MB...
Also the funny part is that it takes the machine about a second to freeze
and I have to power cycle. I can't Stop-A, the machine becomes totally
unresponsive. Never seem that before on a Sun
What is the current recommended version of Solaris 10 for ZFS ?
-thanks,
-Dave
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
The latest OpenSolaris release? Perhaps Nexenta in the end is the way
to best deliver/maintain that.
On 10/27/06, David Blacklock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the current recommended version of Solaris 10 for ZFS ?
-thanks,
-Dave
___
zfs-discuss
Chris Adams wrote:
Is anyone actually booting ZFS in production and, if so, would you recommend
this approach?
ZFS-boot has not been released in any official way
yet. Only parts of it are available in OpenSolaris.
So no, no one should be booting ZFS in production yet.
Lori
Hello David,
Friday, October 27, 2006, 3:04:03 PM, you wrote:
DB What is the current recommended version of Solaris 10 for ZFS ?
DB -thanks,
Depends what you mean by recommended. If you want support and patches
than S10U2 - in a next few weeks S10U3 will be available (with raidz2,
hot-spares,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 07:52:36AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
Is anyone actually booting ZFS in production and, if so, would you
recommend this approach?
ZFS-boot has not been released in any official way
yet. Only parts of it are available in OpenSolaris.
So
Congrats, Pawel. This is truly an impressive piece of work. As you're
probably aware, Noel integrated the patches your provided us into build
51. Hopefully that got rid of some spurious differences between the
code bases.
We do have a program called 'ziltest' that Neil can probably provide for
Pawel,
I second that praise. Well done!
Attached is a copy of ziltest. You will have to adapt this a bit
to your environment. In particular it uses bringover to pull a subtree
of our source and then builds and later runs it. This tends to create
a fair number of transactions with various
This is:
6483887 without direct management, arc ghost lists can run amok
That seems to be a new bug?
http://bugs.opensolaris.org does not yet find it.
The fix I have in mind is to control the ghost lists as part of
the arc_buf_hdr_t allocations. If you want to test out my fix,
I can send
Jürgen Keil wrote On 10/27/06 11:55,:
This is:
6483887 without direct management, arc ghost lists can run amok
That seems to be a new bug?
http://bugs.opensolaris.org does not yet find it.
It's not so new as it was created on 10/19, but as you say bug
search doesn't find it. However, you
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 01:23:37PM -0500, Christopher Scott wrote:
You can manually set up a ZFS root environment but it requires a UFS
partition to boot off of.
See: http://blogs.sun.com/tabriz/entry/are_you_ready_to_rumble
That's not was I was refering to. I'm interested in testing the
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 01:23:37PM -0500, Christopher Scott wrote:
You can manually set up a ZFS root environment but it requires a UFS
partition to boot off of.
See: http://blogs.sun.com/tabriz/entry/are_you_ready_to_rumble
That's not was I was refering to.
can someone please confirm if hot spares are supported in s10u3?
thanks.
oz
--
ozan s. yigit | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://nextbit.blogspot.com
an open mind is no substitute for hard work -- nelson goodman
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Yes, hot spares are in the upcoming Solaris 10 release...
You can read about hot spares in the Solaris Express docs, here:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-2271/6mhupg6ft?a=view#gcvcw
Essentially the same information will appear in the upcoming Solaris 10
version.
Cindy
ozan s. yigit
On 10/24/06, Mark Shellenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Gerhard wrote: I want a file system that is shared by the group. Everything in the file system writable by the group no matter what the umask.The simplest way to do something like that would be:
# zfs create pool/fs# chmod
Peter Tribble wrote:
On 10/24/06, *Mark Shellenbaum* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Gerhard wrote:
I want a file system that is shared by the group. Everything in
the file
system writable by the group no matter what the umask.
The
On 10/27/06, Mark Shellenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Tribble wrote: Make everything be group writeable. % chmod A+group@:rwxp:fd:allow aYou can't use the abstractions owner@,group@, or everyone@ you need tospecify an explicit group, such as.
$ chmod A+group:staff:rwx:fd:allow aUgh. That's
Peter Tribble wrote:
On 10/27/06, *Mark Shellenbaum* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Tribble wrote:
Make everything be group writeable.
% chmod A+group@:rwxp:fd:allow a
You can't use the abstractions owner@,group@, or everyone@ you
25 matches
Mail list logo
