[zfs-discuss] Re: Current status of a ZFS root
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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: ZFS hangs systems during copy
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) memory... The minimum hardware requirement for Solaris 10 (including ZFS) is 256MB, and we did test with that :-) On small memory systems, make sure that you are running with kmem_flags=0 (this is the default on non-debug builds, but debug builds default to kmem_flags=f and you will have to manually change it in /etc/system). I do have kernel memory allocator debugging disabled; both S10 6/2006 and SX:CR snv48 are non-debug builds. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: zpool snapshot fails on unmounted filesystem
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.
Using dtrace against the kernel, I found out that the source
of the EBUSY error 16 is the kernel function zil_suspend():
[b]
...
0- dnode_cons 0
0- dnode_setdblksz
0- dnode_setdblksz14
0- dmu_zfetch_init
0 - list_create
0 - list_create 3734548404
0 - rw_init
0 - rw_init 3734548400
0- dmu_zfetch_init3734548400
0- list_insert_head
0- list_insert_head3734548052
0 - dnode_create 3734548048
0- dnode_special_open 3734548048
0- dsl_dataset_set_user_ptr
0- dsl_dataset_set_user_ptr 0
0 - dmu_objset_open_impl 0
0- dmu_objset_open 0
0- dmu_objset_zil
0- dmu_objset_zil 3700903200
0- zil_suspend
0 | zil_suspend:entry zh_claim_txg: 83432
0- zil_suspend16
0- dmu_objset_close
0 - dsl_dataset_close
0- dbuf_rele
0 - dbuf_evict_user
0- dsl_dataset_evict
0 - unique_remove
...
1200 /*
1201 * Suspend an intent log. While in suspended mode, we still honor
1202 * synchronous semantics, but we rely on txg_wait_synced() to do it.
1203 * We suspend the log briefly when taking a snapshot so that the
snapshot
1204 * contains all the data it's supposed to, and has an empty intent log.
1205 */
1206 int
1207 zil_suspend(zilog_t *zilog)
1208 {
1209 const zil_header_t *zh = zilog-zl_header;
1210 lwb_t *lwb;
1211
1212 mutex_enter(zilog-zl_lock);
1213 if (zh-zh_claim_txg != 0) {/* unplayed log */
1214 mutex_exit(zilog-zl_lock);
1215 return (EBUSY);
1216 }
...
[/b]
It seems that you can identify zfs filesystems that fail
zfs snapshot with error 16 EBUSY using
zdb -iv {your_zpool_here} | grep claim_txg
If there are any ZIL headers listed with a claim_txg != 0, the
dataset that uses this ZIL should fail zfs snapshot with
error 16, EBUSY.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zpool import takes to long with large numbers of file systems
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 Chris Gerhard writes: thank you Eric, Doug. Is there anymore information about the sharemgr project out in opensolaris.org? Searching for it just finds this thread. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zpool snapshot fails on unmounted filesystem
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 {your_zpool_here} | grep claim_txg
If there are any ZIL headers listed with a claim_txg != 0, the
dataset that uses this ZIL should fail zfs snapshot with
error 16, EBUSY.
Thanks Jürgen, I'll add your comments to 6482985 in case they help with
the evaluation. I'll also keep an eye out for those pools during
testing.
cheers,
tim
--
Tim Foster, Sun Microsystems Inc, Operating Platforms Group
Engineering Operationshttp://blogs.sun.com/timf
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS hangs systems during copy
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] Re: ZFS hangs systems during copy Sounds familiar. Yes it is a small system a Sun blade 100 with 128MB of memory. Oh, 128MB... ZFS' *minimum* ARC cache size is fixed at 64MB, so ZFS' ARC cache should already grab slightly more than half of the memory installed in that machine. Leaving less than 64MB of free memory on your machine. Substract from that the space used for all the kernel modules and other kernel data structures, and there's not much free memory left, I guess. I guess I need to install more memory in this baby. Yep, and 256 MB might not be enough. 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) memory... I just very surprised that ZFS will required so much to accomplish just a simple task as a copy. I guess UFS as a target filesystem doesn't have problems with your copy test? From your experience I can tell might be a memory related issue. Yep, could be the same problem that I got, where ZFS keeps adding ARC ghost list cache entries that noone cleans up, so kmem usage keeps growing until the machine hangs. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS hangs systems during copy
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 PROTECTED] Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS hangs systems during copy Sounds familiar. Yes it is a small system a Sun blade 100 with 128MB of memory. Oh, 128MB... ZFS' *minimum* ARC cache size is fixed at 64MB, so ZFS' ARC cache should already grab slightly more than half of the memory installed in that machine. Leaving less than 64MB of free memory on your machine. Substract from that the space used for all the kernel modules and other kernel data structures, and there's not much free memory left, I guess. I guess I need to install more memory in this baby. Yep, and 256 MB might not be enough. 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) memory... I just very surprised that ZFS will required so much to accomplish just a simple task as a copy. I guess UFS as a target filesystem doesn't have problems with your copy test? From your experience I can tell might be a memory related issue. Yep, could be the same problem that I got, where ZFS keeps adding ARC ghost list cache entries that noone cleans up, so kmem usage keeps growing until the machine hangs. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS hangs systems during copy
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 Server. Same here. Sending a BREAK signal on the keyboard port works, though. You can send a BREAK by unplugging / re-plugging the keyboard connector. That should get you to the boot prom where you can for a crashdump filesystem flush using the sync OBP command. (Note that this method of sending a BREAK probably won't work with an USB console keyboard) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Best version of Solaris 10 fro ZFS ?
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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best version of Solaris 10 fro ZFS ?
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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Current status of a ZFS root
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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best version of Solaris 10 fro ZFS ?
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, many fixes) so I would go with U3 if you can wait. Of course you can also go with Solaris Express - many people do in production environments. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Current status of a ZFS root
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 no, no one should be booting ZFS in production yet. How about test? If I wanted to test this, what would I need to get? Or, if it's not completely available yet, what would I need to wait for? -brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Porting ZFS file system to FreeBSD.
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 you that does a good job stressing the ZIL. We also have a complete test suite (functional and stress), but it would be non-trivial to port, and I don't know what the current status is for open sourcing the test suites in general. Let us know if there's anything else we can help with. - Eric On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 05:41:49AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: Here is another update: After way too much time spend on fighting the buffer cache I finally made mmap(2)ed reads/writes to work and (which is also very important) keep regular reads/writes working. Now I'm able to build FreeBSD's kernel and userland with both sources and objects placed on ZFS file system. I also tried to crash it with fsx, fsstress and postmark, but no luck, it works stable. On the other hand I'm quite sure there are many problems in ZPL still, but fixing mmap(2) allows me to move forward. As a said note - ZVOL seems to be full functional. I need to find a way to test ZIL, so if you guys at SUN have some ZIL tests like uncleanly stopped file system, which at mount time will exercise entire ZIL functionality where we can verify that my FS was fixed properly that would be great. PS. There is still a lot to do, so please, don't ask me for patches yet. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Porting ZFS file system to FreeBSD.
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 dependencies.
You'll obviously have to update the paths and tools.
However, at least initially, I'd recommend you simplify things by
perhaps jhaving the only test as a creation of a file.
The basic flow behind ziltest is:
1. Create an empty file system FS1
2. Freeze FS1
3. Perform various user commands that create files, directories, etc
4. Copy FS1 to FS2
5. Unmount and unfreeze FS1
6. Remount FS1 (resulting in replay of log)
7. Compare FS1 FS2 and complain if not equal
Hope this helps and good luck: Neil.
Eric Schrock wrote On 10/27/06 10:18,:
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
you that does a good job stressing the ZIL. We also have a complete
test suite (functional and stress), but it would be non-trivial to port,
and I don't know what the current status is for open sourcing the test
suites in general.
Let us know if there's anything else we can help with.
- Eric
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 05:41:49AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
Here is another update:
After way too much time spend on fighting the buffer cache I finally
made mmap(2)ed reads/writes to work and (which is also very important)
keep regular reads/writes working.
Now I'm able to build FreeBSD's kernel and userland with both sources
and objects placed on ZFS file system.
I also tried to crash it with fsx, fsstress and postmark, but no luck,
it works stable.
On the other hand I'm quite sure there are many problems in ZPL still,
but fixing mmap(2) allows me to move forward.
As a said note - ZVOL seems to be full functional.
I need to find a way to test ZIL, so if you guys at SUN have some ZIL
tests like uncleanly stopped file system, which at mount time will
exercise entire ZIL functionality where we can verify that my FS was
fixed properly that would be great.
PS. There is still a lot to do, so please, don't ask me for patches yet.
--
Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
--
Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
#!/bin/ksh -x
#
# CDDL HEADER START
#
# The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
# Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only
# (the License). You may not use this file except in compliance
# with the License.
#
# You can obtain a copy of the license at usr/src/OPENSOLARIS.LICENSE
# or http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing.
# See the License for the specific language governing permissions
# and limitations under the License.
#
# When distributing Covered Code, include this CDDL HEADER in each
# file and include the License file at usr/src/OPENSOLARIS.LICENSE.
# If applicable, add the following below this CDDL HEADER, with the
# fields enclosed by brackets [] replaced with your own identifying
# information: Portions Copyright [] [name of copyright owner]
#
# CDDL HEADER END
#
#
# Copyright 2006 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
# Use is subject to license terms.
#
# ident @(#)ziltest 1.2 06/01/30 SMI
#
# - creates a 150MB pool in /tmp
# - Should take about a minute (depends on access to the gate for bringover).
# - You can change the gate to local by setting and exporting ZILTEST_GATE
#
PATH=/usr/bin
PATH=$PATH:/usr/sbin
PATH=$PATH:/usr/ccs/bin
#PATH=$PATH:/net/slug.eng/opt/export/`uname -p`/opt/SUNWspro/SOS8/bin
#PATH=$PATH:/net/anthrax.central/export/tools/onnv-tools/SUNWspro/SOS8/bin
PATH=$PATH:/net/haulass.central/export/tools/onnv-tools/SUNWspro/SOS8/bin
#PATH=$PATH:/net/slug.eng/opt/onbld/bin
PATH=$PATH:/opt/onbld/bin
export PATH
#
# SETUP
#
ZILTEST_GATE=${ZILTEST_GATE-/net/haulass.central/export/clones/onnv}
CMD=`basename $0`
POOL=ziltestpool.$$
DEVSIZE=${DEVSIZE-150m}
POOLDIR=/tmp
POOLFILE=$POOLDIR/ziltest_poolfile.$$
FS=$POOL/fs
ROOT=/$FS
COPY=/tmp/${POOL}
KEEP=no
cleanup() {
zfs destroy $FS
zpool iostat $POOL
print
zpool status $POOL
zpool destroy $POOL
rm -rf $COPY
rm $POOLFILE
}
bail() {
test $KEEP = no cleanup
print $1
exit 1
}
test $# -eq 0 || bail usage: $CMD
mkfile $DEVSIZE $POOLFILE || bail can't make
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: ZFS hangs systems during copy
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 you some diffs... Ok, I can do that. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: ZFS hangs systems during copy
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 can access it directly: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6483887 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Current status of a ZFS root
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 install/boot stuff that's being worked on. The No-UFS Needed kind. ;) -brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Current status of a ZFS root
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. I'm interested in testing the install/boot stuff that's being worked on. The No-UFS Needed kind. ;) We do have a new version of the procedure documented in Tabriz's blog that no longer requires the UFS partition. I will look into getting that made available and will announce its availability on this alias. It's still a largely manual procedure involving bfu. As for the regular install/boot support of zfs, there are some issues preventing the release of this. First, the Solaris install code has not yet been open-sourced, so we can't provide the install code changes for zfs boot. So, why not provide install executables and let you build your own ISO or netinstall images? Because the zfs boot support in the kernel has not yet been integrated into Solaris, so the source available to the Open Solaris community doesn't have the code changes yet. So maybe provide the diffs and let the community build it themselves? Well, to do a regular install, you need packages, not BFU archives. And the Open Solaris community can't build the necessary packages yet because of this bug: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6414822 So either the zfs boot support has to be putback into Solaris, or the above bug needs to be fixed before we can make a zfs-capable install solution available to the Open Solaris community. Lori Alt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] s10u3 query
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 zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] s10u3 query
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 wrote: can someone please confirm if hot spares are supported in s10u3? thanks. oz ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] chmod A=.... on ZFS != chmod A=... on UFS
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 A+group:whatever:perms desired:fd:allow pool/fsOK, so I tried this:Create a directory.% mkdir -m 770 aMake everything be group writeable. % chmod A+group@:rwxp:fd:allow aCreate a file.% touch a/fWhat permissions does it have?% /bin/ls -ldV a/f-rw-r--r--+ 1 ptribble 5000 0 Oct 27 22:49 a/f group@:--:--:allow owner@:--x---:--:deny owner@:rw-p---A-W-Co-:--:allow group@:-wxp--:--:deny group@:r-:--:allow everyone@:-wxp---A-W-Co-:--:deny everyone@:r-a-R-c--s:--:allowNo. That doesn't work. For one thing, the file isn't group writable.For another, it's picked up an unnecessary ACL.What is the syntax to create an ACL on a directory so that everything underneath is group-writable?-- -Peter Tribblehttp://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] chmod A=.... on ZFS != chmod A=... on UFS
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 simplest way to do something like that would be: # zfs create pool/fs # chmod A+group:whatever:perms desired:fd:allow pool/fs OK, so I tried this: Create a directory. % mkdir -m 770 a Make everything be group writeable. % chmod A+group@:rwxp:fd:allow a You can't use the abstractions owner@,group@, or everyone@ you need to specify an explicit group, such as. $ chmod A+group:staff:rwx:fd:allow a Create a file. % touch a/f What permissions does it have? % /bin/ls -ldV a/f -rw-r--r--+ 1 ptribble 5000 0 Oct 27 22:49 a/f group@:--:--:allow owner@:--x---:--:deny owner@:rw-p---A-W-Co-:--:allow group@:-wxp--:--:deny group@:r-:--:allow everyone@:-wxp---A-W-Co-:--:deny everyone@:r-a-R-c--s:--:allow No. That doesn't work. For one thing, the file isn't group writable. For another, it's picked up an unnecessary ACL. What is the syntax to create an ACL on a directory so that everything underneath is group-writable? -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] chmod A=.... on ZFS != chmod A=... on UFS
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 a horrid limitation. What are the chances of this beingchanged?And how does this work with the 'other' permissions? I can't specify an explicit name with 'everyone:'.-- -Peter Tribblehttp://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] chmod A=.... on ZFS != chmod A=... on UFS
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 need to specify an explicit group, such as. $ chmod A+group:staff:rwx:fd:allow a Ugh. That's a horrid limitation. What are the chances of this being changed? Its tied in with the reconciliation of the mode. You need to just start thinking about things in a non-ufs way. And how does this work with the 'other' permissions? I can't specify an explicit name with 'everyone:'. No, but you can specify a specific user. chmod A+user:joe:rwxp:fd:allow a ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
