Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
You're confusing lofi and lofs, I think. Have a look at man lofs. Now all _I_ would like is translucent options to that and I'd solve one of my major headaches. That I am. I have never used lofs, looks interesting. Thanks. -- Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
Jorgen Lundman wrote: You're confusing lofi and lofs, I think. Have a look at man lofs. Now all _I_ would like is translucent options to that and I'd solve one of my major headaches. I can not export lofs on NFS. Just gives invalid path, and: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6578437 -- Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
I can not export lofs on NFS. Just gives invalid path, Tell that to our mirror server. -bash-3.00$ /sbin/mount -p | grep linux /data/linux - /linux lofs - no ro /data/linux - /export/ftp/pub/linux lofs - no ro -bash-3.00$ grep linux /etc/dfs/sharetab /linux - nfs ro Linux directories -bash-3.00$ df -k /linux Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on data 3369027462 3300686151 68341312 98% /data and: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6578437 I'm using straight Solaris, not Solaris Express or equivalents: -bash-3.00$ uname -a SunOS leprechaun.csi.cam.ac.uk 5.10 Generic_127111-01 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V240 Solaris I can't comment on the bug, although I notice it is categorised under nfsv4, but the description doesn't seem to match that. Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian -- Julian King Computer Officer, University of Cambridge, Unix Support ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
Ah it's a somewhat mis-leading error message: bash-3.00# mount -F lofs /zpool1/test /export/test bash-3.00# share -F nfs -o rw,anon=0 /export/test Could not share: /export/test: invalid path bash-3.00# umount /export/test bash-3.00# zfs set sharenfs=off zpool1/test bash-3.00# mount -F lofs /zpool1/test /export/test bash-3.00# share -F nfs -o rw,anon=0 /export/test So if any zfs file-system has sharenfs enabled, you will get invalid path. If you disable sharenfs, then you can export the lofs. Lund J.P. King wrote: I can not export lofs on NFS. Just gives invalid path, Tell that to our mirror server. -bash-3.00$ /sbin/mount -p | grep linux /data/linux - /linux lofs - no ro /data/linux - /export/ftp/pub/linux lofs - no ro -bash-3.00$ grep linux /etc/dfs/sharetab /linux - nfs ro Linux directories -bash-3.00$ df -k /linux Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on data 3369027462 3300686151 68341312 98% /data and: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6578437 I'm using straight Solaris, not Solaris Express or equivalents: -bash-3.00$ uname -a SunOS leprechaun.csi.cam.ac.uk 5.10 Generic_127111-01 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V240 Solaris I can't comment on the bug, although I notice it is categorised under nfsv4, but the description doesn't seem to match that. Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian -- Julian King Computer Officer, University of Cambridge, Unix Support -- Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:40:57PM +0900, Jorgen Lundman wrote: Ah it's a somewhat mis-leading error message: bash-3.00# mount -F lofs /zpool1/test /export/test bash-3.00# share -F nfs -o rw,anon=0 /export/test Could not share: /export/test: invalid path bash-3.00# umount /export/test bash-3.00# zfs set sharenfs=off zpool1/test bash-3.00# mount -F lofs /zpool1/test /export/test bash-3.00# share -F nfs -o rw,anon=0 /export/test So if any zfs file-system has sharenfs enabled, you will get invalid path. If you disable sharenfs, then you can export the lofs. I reported bug #6578437. We recently ugraded to b77 and this bug appears to be fixed now. Lund J.P. King wrote: I can not export lofs on NFS. Just gives invalid path, Tell that to our mirror server. -bash-3.00$ /sbin/mount -p | grep linux /data/linux - /linux lofs - no ro /data/linux - /export/ftp/pub/linux lofs - no ro -bash-3.00$ grep linux /etc/dfs/sharetab /linux - nfs ro Linux directories -bash-3.00$ df -k /linux Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on data 3369027462 3300686151 68341312 98% /data and: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6578437 I'm using straight Solaris, not Solaris Express or equivalents: -bash-3.00$ uname -a SunOS leprechaun.csi.cam.ac.uk 5.10 Generic_127111-01 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V240 Solaris I can't comment on the bug, although I notice it is categorised under nfsv4, but the description doesn't seem to match that. Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian -- Julian King Computer Officer, University of Cambridge, Unix Support -- Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
Jorgen Lundman wrote: SXCE is coming out _very_ soon. But all of your clients need to support NFSv4 mount point crossing to make full use of it, unless the automounter works out well enough. Ahh, that's a shame.. Automounter works sufficiently at the moment, but it does not work well with discovering new file-systems. Yes, that's something I fight with, as well. We tried to make the mount point crossing support better here. I made the mistake of umount -f /net/x4500/export/mail, even when autofs was disabled, and now all I get is I/O Errors. Is it always this sensitive? umount -f is a power tool with no guard. If you had local apps using the filesystem, they would have seen I/O errors as well. The automounter is not making things worse here, so calling it sensitive doesn't sound right to me. Rob T ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
I made the mistake of umount -f /net/x4500/export/mail, even when autofs was disabled, and now all I get is I/O Errors. Is it always this sensitive? umount -f is a power tool with no guard. If you had local apps using the filesystem, they would have seen I/O errors as well. The automounter is not making things worse here, so calling it sensitive doesn't sound right to me. The biggest issue, though, here is that the automounter's /net mounts for each host are read only once when the mountpoint is first established. It's only ever refreshed when all the host's filesystems are unmounted. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I made the mistake of umount -f /net/x4500/export/mail, even when autofs was disabled, and now all I get is I/O Errors. Is it always this sensitive? umount -f is a power tool with no guard. If you had local apps using the filesystem, they would have seen I/O errors as well. The automounter is not making things worse here, so calling it sensitive doesn't sound right to me. The biggest issue, though, here is that the automounter's /net mounts for each host are read only once when the mountpoint is first established. It's only ever refreshed when all the host's filesystems are unmounted. Yes, and what's worse is that that can't be done manually in a reasonable way - the unmounts just fail unless they're driven by the unmount thread. I'd love to get this fixed sometime ... Rob T ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] xVm blockers!
1/ Anchor vNic, the equivalent of linux dummy interfaces, we need more flexibility in the way we setup xen networking. What is sad is that the code is already available in the unreleased crossbow bits... but it won't appear in nevada until Q1 2008 :( This is a real blocker for me as my ISP just started implementing port security and locks my connection everytime it sees a foreign mac address using one of the IP addresses that were originally assigned to my dom0. On linux, I can setup a dummy interface and create a bridge with it for a domU but on Solaris I need a physical NIC per bridge !$!! @#$! For this particular feature, I am ready to give a few hundred dollars as booty if anyone has a workaround. 2/ Pci passthru, this is really useful so you can let a domU access a PCI card. It comes really handy if you want to virtualize a PBX that is using cheap zaptel FXO cards. Again on linux, xen pci passthru has been available for a while. Last time I mention this on the xen solaris discussion, I received a very dry reply. 3/ Problem with DMA under Xen ... e.g. my areca raid cards works perfect on a 8GB box without xen but because of the way xen allocates memory... I am forced to allocate only 1 or 2 gig for the dom0 or the areca drivers will fail miserably trying to do DMA above the first 4G address space. This very same problem affected xen under linux over a year ago and seems to have been addressed. Several persons on the ZFS discuss list who complain about poor ZFS IO performance are affected by this issue. 4/ Poor exploit mitigation under Solaris. In comparaison, OpenBSD, grsec linux and Windows = XP SP2 have really good exploit mitigation It is a shame because solaris offered a non-exec stack before nearly everyone else... but it stopped there... no heap protection, etc... The only thing that is preventing me from switching back to linux (no zfs), freebsd (no xen) or openbsd (no xen and no zfs), right now is ZFS and it is the same reason I switched to Solaris in the first place. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] xVm blockers!
K wrote: 4/ Poor exploit mitigation under Solaris. In comparaison, OpenBSD, grsec linux and Windows = XP SP2 have really good exploit mitigation It is a shame because solaris offered a non-exec stack before nearly everyone else... but it stopped there... no heap protection, etc... Have you looked at privileges(5) and in particular look at how little privilege many of the system daemons run with - sometimes even *less* privilege than an normal user login. Heap protection isn't the only way and it only protects against certain types of exploit. It doesn't help protect against logic flaws that get a program to do something it shouldn't but could but without giving it new code to run. Though what this has to do with xen or zfs I don't know this is a topic that would be better for security-discuss, so I've set the reply-to there. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [xen-discuss] xVm blockers!
K wrote: 1/ Anchor vNic, the equivalent of linux dummy interfaces, we need more flexibility in the way we setup xen networking. What is sad is that the code is already available in the unreleased crossbow bits... but it won't appear in nevada until Q1 2008 :( This is a real blocker for me as my ISP just started implementing port security and locks my connection everytime it sees a foreign mac address using one of the IP addresses that were originally assigned to my dom0. On linux, I can setup a dummy interface and create a bridge with it for a domU but on Solaris I need a physical NIC per bridge !$!! @#$! For this particular feature, I am ready to give a few hundred dollars as booty if anyone has a workaround. work in progress.. Highly unlikely we will wait until Crossbow is integrated before we have this functionality. 2/ Pci passthru, this is really useful so you can let a domU access a PCI card. It comes really handy if you want to virtualize a PBX that is using cheap zaptel FXO cards. Again on linux, xen pci passthru has been available for a while. Last time I mention this on the xen solaris discussion, I received a very dry reply. This has been low on our priority list. We do plan on doing it relatively soon, but to date, not a lot of customers have asked for it (for use in a production environment). We'll probably start on Solaris domU pass through support within a month or two and then do dom0 support after that. It just comes down to when folks free up from other xVM related work to do the code. 3/ Problem with DMA under Xen ... e.g. my areca raid cards works perfect on a 8GB box without xen but because of the way xen allocates memory... I am forced to allocate only 1 or 2 gig for the dom0 or the areca drivers will fail miserably trying to do DMA above the first 4G address space. This very same problem affected xen under linux over a year ago and seems to have been addressed. Several persons on the ZFS discuss list who complain about poor ZFS IO performance are affected by this issue. This should be relatively easy to fix assuming I can get access to similar H/W. Do you get any error messages? We do have a bug in contig alloc (allocs too much memory) which was recently found which is affecting nv_sata based systems. It may be related to that or something that the driver could be doing better. Can you send me more details around your setup (card your using, what's connected to it, where you got the driver and what version you have), behavior and perf on metal, behavior and perf on xVM. 4/ Poor exploit mitigation under Solaris. In comparaison, OpenBSD, grsec linux and Windows = XP SP2 have really good exploit mitigation It is a shame because solaris offered a non-exec stack before nearly everyone else... but it stopped there... no heap protection, etc... The only thing that is preventing me from switching back to linux (no zfs), freebsd (no xen) or openbsd (no xen and no zfs), right now is ZFS and it is the same reason I switched to Solaris in the first place. I'll let the security folks handle this :-) MRJ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] xVm blockers!
ok cc'ing the zfs discuss was probably a mistake. However I don't like the way you troll me and single out point 4, while the other 3 points are directly related to Xen. point 1, I can't set migrate a xen domU from a linux dom0 because it is impossible to keep the previous network configuration without adding hardware (an extra network card.) so much for virtualization! point 2 pci passthrough is an original xen feature that is missing in xVm. point 3 on solaris xen breaks when your system when you have over 4 gig of ram... the same drivers work fine when you're not running the xen hypervisor. point 4 was just another thing that annoys me a little about solaris. I have mentioned that there as been some progress recently in a previous thread but solaris still has a lot of work to do to improve its security. Do I need to remind you the recent -froot telnet bug? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] PROPOSAL: Open Solaris Forensics Toolkit Project
Hello all I am posting the proposal in topic to this community for comment and hoping to count on eventual sponsorship. I already discussed this idea with the security community and the outcome is that such project will be an interesting thing to have. Please find more info on the discussion and background on the following blog post: http://blogs.sun.com/efi/category/Forensics+and+Incident+Response One of the biggest gaps identified during this discussion was, without a doubt, the lack of _proper_ ZFS forensics toolkit. The Open Solaris Forensics Toolkit project proposes to drive a creation of such a toolkit. This is a big challenge which will be impossible without the involvement and sponsorship from the ZFS community. I will be looking forward for comments on this idea and will welcome eventual volunteers willing to join the project team if such idea is deemed relevant. Cheers Evtim (Efi) Batchev ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Lock when booting on SATA disk with ZFS
hi there, Last week i've installed 3 disks Western Digital 250GB on ZFS. All that time, i was able to put file on it, move, copy... everything worked fine, cool! But, i needed to reboot the computer, so i did it, but then, when the Bios detect all the disk, it stop after that. I can't go in the config by pressing DEL, it stay there. My motherboard is a MSI Neo2 Platinum with 4 SATA-150MB port. I've tried to plug only 1 of these drive, as soon as one of them (disk that i've installed zfs) it lock right after the disk detection. Is someone else did have this problem, or know what happen ? I did a lot of test without any success. Is zfs causing all this? does it write something at the beginning of the drive that can cause this behavior ? Thanks, Ben. 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] Lock when booting on SATA disk with ZFS
Is zfs causing all this? does it write something at the beginning of the drive that can cause this behavior ? Well, cause is not the correct term here. We've found that quite a few motherboards have buggy BIOSes; as soon as the BIOS sees a drive, it tries to read some data from it and in case of EFI labels this causes the BIOS software to crash. Generally, this can be worked around in the following manner: - remove the affected disks. - change the BIOS to ignore the selected disks/controllers during boot/test, this could mean any of the steps: - remove device from boot order - prevent device BIOS extensions from executing - etc. - reinsert the affected disks. It's an, unfortunately, very common issue. Option 0 to try might be: upgrade BIOS. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS write frequency
IHAC who would like to understand following: We've upgraded a box to sol10-u4 and created a ZFS pool. We notice that running zfs iostat 1 or iostat -xnz 1, the data gets written to disk every 5 seconds, even though the data is being copied to the filesystem continuously. This behavior is different than UFS as UFS continuously writes. So, what's with the 5 second pause? Any clarification will be appreciated. Thank you Ajay begin:vcard fn:Ajay Kumar n:Kumar;Ajay org:Sun Microsystems Inc.;Client Solutions adr:;;400 Atrium Drive;Somerset;NJ;08873;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Systems Engineer tel;work:877-40704614 tel;fax:877-407-4614 x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS write frequency
Ajay Kumar wrote: IHAC who would like to understand following: We've upgraded a box to sol10-u4 and created a ZFS pool. We notice that running zfs iostat 1 or iostat -xnz 1, the data gets written to disk every 5 seconds, even though the data is being copied to the filesystem continuously. This behavior is different than UFS as UFS continuously writes. So, what's with the 5 second pause? ZFS creates transactions for systems calls that modify the pool. For efficiency it gathers together individual transactions into transaction groups (txgs) which are committed every 5 seconds. If you are seeing some constant background write activity then that is probably due to synchronous writes which require data be stable on return from the system call. These are written on demand to an intent log. Any clarification will be appreciated. Thank you Ajay ___ 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] Expanding a Harware RAID 5 Array vdev in ZFS?
Thanks for the response. I don't know enough about the symantics of the device IDs, I hope it does not change, and that maybe zfs will see that the lun has grown. Seeing if you can use use a file system or file as a vdev (and can't they change sizes?) then you'd figure it could do the same with an array vdev. Especially since zfs is touted as 'dynamic' everything (unless, of course, you want to shrink a pool)...I will try to test it see what happens, I just have to find somewhere to stash another 400GB to clear off another drive in the mean time. If anyone has definitive knowledge and can save me the trouble, please chime in. Thanks. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] open source ZFS documentation
Hi all, Did you know that the Solaris ZFS Administration Guide is open source? Download the latest XML source files and HTML here: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/docs/downloads/current/ ZFSADMIN directory contains the ZFS administration guide. Thanks, Michelle Olson OpenSolaris Documentation Community Leader http://opensolaris.org/os/community/documentation 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] Lock when booting on SATA disk with ZFS
It is now solved! thanks to Casper and billm this is the mail i've received from Casper, i don't know why i didn't saw it here in the forum but... Is zfs causing all this? does it write something at the beginning of the drive that can cause this behavior ? Well, cause is not the correct term here. We've found that quite a few motherboards have buggy BIOSes; as soon as the BIOS sees a drive, it tries to read some data from it and in case of EFI labels this causes the BIOS software to crash. Generally, this can be worked around in the following manner: - remove the affected disks. - change the BIOS to ignore the selected disks/controllers during boot/test, this could mean any of the steps: - remove device from boot order - prevent device BIOS extensions from executing - etc. - reinsert the affected disks. It's an, unfortunately, very common issue. Option 0 to try might be: upgrade BIOS. Casper So at that time, i know that it is something about the EFI label, i have tried what Casper told me in the Bios, but i cannot disable completely a drive from the boot disk list. But i've search about the EFI labels and found this old post of 2005: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=18116#18116 So i followed billm advice and i did these step to make everything works after a reboot: - Plug the power on the HD, without the sata cable and boot directly into Solaris 10 - Plug the SATA back on run format -e - selected the first disk in problem in the list - typed: fdisk - deleted the EFI partition, create a standard Solaris partition at 100% (have to create a Solaris2 then used the menu option to change it back to Solaris) - Option 5 to exit and save the fdisk changes - typed: label select option #0: SMI - exit format and back to do the same step on the 2 others disks Then, i think that the EFI was done with creating the pool in raindz using the hole disk instead of using one partition only so instead of doing: # zpool create mypool raidz c1d0 c2d0 c3d0 i did: # zpool create mypool raid c1d0p0 c2d0p0 c3d0p0 Then, a zfs create mypool/test a reboot Everything works fine now !!! thanks ! Ben. 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] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
I am still having issues with lofs even. I have created 2329 home directories, each with a mail directory inside it. zfs original: /export/mail/ lofs mount: /export/test/ # find /export/test/mail/m/e/0/0/ -name mail | wc -l 2327 NFS client: mount /export/test/ # ls -l /export/test/mail/m/e/0/0 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:13 me649000 [snip] # ls -l /export/test/mail/m/e/0/0 | wc -l 2328 # find /export/test/mail/m/e/0/0/ -name mail | wc -l 0 So I create the three following file-systems, directories: drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 3 Nov 29 12:17 this_is_a_local_dir drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 3 Nov 29 12:18 zfs_without_quota drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 3 Nov 29 12:19 zfs_without_compression As seen from the NFS client: drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 3 Nov 29 12:17 this_is_a_local_dir drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:19 zfs_without_compression drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:18 zfs_without_quota NFS client: find /export/test/m/e/0/0/ -name mail -ls 44552 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root2 Nov 29 12:17 /export/test/m/e/0/0/this_is_a_local_dir/mail So, even though the lofs mounted filesystem works just fine on the x4500 machine itself, once it is NFS exported, I can not enter other ZFS file-systems inside that directory tree. All those file-systems just appear empty. I also found this situation to be confusing: x4500: # cd zfs_without_quota # mkdir test # ls -l drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:18 mail drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:28 test NFS client: # cd zfs_without_quota # mkdir foo # ls -l drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:28 foo x4500: # ls -l drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:18 mail drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:28 test Sooo.. what? Where did that foo directory get created exactly? # pwd /export/test/m/e/0/0/zfs_without_quota # df -h . Filesystem size used avail capacity Mounted on x4500:/export/test 17T 4.6M17T 1%/export/test Jorgen Lundman wrote: Ah it's a somewhat mis-leading error message: bash-3.00# mount -F lofs /zpool1/test /export/test bash-3.00# share -F nfs -o rw,anon=0 /export/test Could not share: /export/test: invalid path bash-3.00# umount /export/test bash-3.00# zfs set sharenfs=off zpool1/test bash-3.00# mount -F lofs /zpool1/test /export/test bash-3.00# share -F nfs -o rw,anon=0 /export/test So if any zfs file-system has sharenfs enabled, you will get invalid path. If you disable sharenfs, then you can export the lofs. Lund J.P. King wrote: I can not export lofs on NFS. Just gives invalid path, Tell that to our mirror server. -bash-3.00$ /sbin/mount -p | grep linux /data/linux - /linux lofs - no ro /data/linux - /export/ftp/pub/linux lofs - no ro -bash-3.00$ grep linux /etc/dfs/sharetab /linux - nfs ro Linux directories -bash-3.00$ df -k /linux Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on data 3369027462 3300686151 68341312 98% /data and: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6578437 I'm using straight Solaris, not Solaris Express or equivalents: -bash-3.00$ uname -a SunOS leprechaun.csi.cam.ac.uk 5.10 Generic_127111-01 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V240 Solaris I can't comment on the bug, although I notice it is categorised under nfsv4, but the description doesn't seem to match that. Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian -- Julian King Computer Officer, University of Cambridge, Unix Support -- Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] x4500 w/ small random encrypted text files
I'm getting ready to test a thumper (500gig drives/ 16GB) as a backup store for small (avg 2kb) encrypted text files. I'm considering a zpool of 7 x 5+1 raidz1 vdevs to maximize space and provide some level of redundancy carved into about 10 zfs filesystems. Since the files are encrypted, compression is obviously out. Is it recommended to tune the zfs blocksize to 2KB for this type of implementation? Also, has anyone noticed any performance impacts presenting a config like this to a non-global zone? 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] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
Found them. They are all under the second layer file-system. # zfs set mountpoint=/mnt zpool1/mail/m/e/0/0/zfs_without_quota # cd /export/mail/m/e/0/0/zfs_without_quota # ls -l drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:28 foo drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 16:04 roger So lofs works to export one zfs, but any other zfs file-systems inside that are ignored. So basically, lofs will not work either. x4500: # cd zfs_without_quota # mkdir test # ls -l drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:18 mail drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:28 test NFS client: # cd zfs_without_quota # mkdir foo # ls -l drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:28 foo x4500: # ls -l drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:18 mail drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Nov 29 12:28 test Sooo.. what? Where did that foo directory get created exactly? -- Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] x4500 w/ small random encrypted text files
Point of clarification: I meant recordsize. I'm guessing {from what I've read}
that the blocksize is auto-tuned.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
