[zfs-discuss] ZFS mount fails at boot
I have about a dozen two disk systems that were all setup the same using a combination of SVM and ZFS. s0 = / SMV Mirror s1 = swap s3 = /tmp s4 = metadb s5 = zfs mirror The system does boot, but once it gets to zfs, zfs fails and all subsequent services fail as well (including ssh) /home,/tmp, and /data are on the zfs mirror. /var is on it's own UFS/SVM mirror as well as root and swap. I included the errors I am getting as well as the exact commands I used to build both the SVM and ZFS mirrors. (All of which appeared to work flawlessly) I am guessing there is just something really simple that needs to be set. Any Ideas? --Errors-- vfcufs01# cat /var/svc/log/system-filesystem-local:default.log [ Mar 16 11:02:58 Rereading configuration. ] [ Mar 16 11:03:37 Executing start method (/lib/svc/method/fs-local) ] bootadm: no matching entry found: Solaris_reboot_transient [ Mar 16 11:03:37 Method start exited with status 0 ] [ Mar 16 13:25:58 Executing start method (/lib/svc/method/fs-local) ] bootadm: no matching entry found: Solaris_reboot_transient [ Mar 16 13:25:58 Method start exited with status 0 ] [ Mar 20 15:26:32 Executing start method (/lib/svc/method/fs-local) ] bootadm: no matching entry found: Solaris_reboot_transient WARNING: /usr/sbin/zfs mount -a failed: exit status 1 [ Mar 20 15:26:32 Method start exited with status 95 ] [ Mar 21 08:27:37 Leaving maintenance because disable requested. ] [ Mar 21 08:27:37 Disabled. ] [ Mar 21 08:32:22 Executing start method (/lib/svc/method/fs-local) ] bootadm: no matching entry found: Solaris_reboot_transient WARNING: /usr/sbin/zfs mount -a failed: exit status 1 [ Mar 21 08:32:23 Method start exited with status 95 ] [ Mar 21 08:50:20 Leaving maintenance because disable requested. ] [ Mar 21 08:50:20 Disabled. ] [ Mar 21 08:55:07 Executing start method (/lib/svc/method/fs-local) ] bootadm: no matching entry found: Solaris_reboot_transient WARNING: /usr/sbin/zfs mount -a failed: exit status 1 [ Mar 21 08:55:07 Method start exited with status 95 ] --Commands Run to make SVM and ZFS mirror--- prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s2 | fmthard -s - /dev/rdsk/c0t1d0s2 installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c0t1d0s0 metadb -a -f -c 2 c0t0d0s4 c0t1d0s4 metainit -f d10 1 1 c0t0d0s0 metainit -f d11 1 1 c0t0d0s1 metainit -f d13 1 1 c0t0d0s3 metainit -f d20 1 1 c0t1d0s0 metainit -f d21 1 1 c0t1d0s1 metainit -f d23 1 1 c0t1d0s3 metainit d0 -m d10 metainit d1 -m d11 metainit d3 -m d13 metaroot d0 Update /etc/vfstab so that the swap partition points to the d1 just as root was modified by the last command to point to d0 Swap line in vfstab should look like this /dev/md/dsk/d1 - - swap- no - lockfs -fa Reboot After reboot… metattach d0 d20 metattach d1 d21 metattach d3 d23 Then do this to check the status of the mirroring metastat | grep % Wait until the syncs are complete zpool create zpool mirror c0t0d0s5 c0t1d0s5 Create the filesystem umount /home umount /tmp rm -rf /data rm -rf /home rm -rf /tmp zfs create zpool/data zfs create zpool/home zfs create zpool/tmp sleep 10 Make the directory for the mountpoint mkdir /data mkdir /home mkdir /tmp Make the mountpoint zfs set mountpoint=/data zpool/data zfs set mountpoint=/home zpool/home zfs set mountpoint=/tmp zpool/tmp Now you should have the regular roots for these Turn ZFS compression on zfs set compression=on zpool/data zfs set compression=on zpool/home zfs set compression=on zpool/tmp Set the quotas zfs set quota=4G zpool/home zfs set quota=1G zpool/tmp 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: Is there any performance problem with hard links in ZFS?
Thank you very much for the consultation. The information was very useful. And I have one more questions about ZFS file attributes. I have found such information 2^56 — Number of attributes of a file in ZFS but i cant found any information mechanism of creating such attributes. The situation is next: I want to save a lot of file information not in database but in file attributes. File attributes setting will be processing by a Perl or C program. Is there any way to do this? 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] migration/acl4 problem
Jens Elkner wrote: Hi, 2) On zfs - e.g. as root do: cp -P -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir # cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry I will open a bug on that. cp -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir # cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry find dir | cpio -puvmdP /pool1/docs/ - as user B do: cd /pool1/zfsdir/dir touch y - as user A do: cd /pool1/zfsdir/dir echo bla y I can't reproduce your simple test. I have two user tester1 and tester2 and both are members of tstgroup tester1$ mkdir a.dir tester1$ chmod 775 a.dir tester1$ setfacl -m d:u::rwx,d:g::rwx,d:o:r-x,d:m:rwx a.dir # su - tester2 tester2$ cd a.dir tester2$ touch b tester2$ ls -l b total 0 -rw-rw-r-- 1 tester2 tstgrp 0 Mar 22 08:21 b # find a.dir -print | cpio -Pvmudp /sandbox /sandbox/a.dir /sandbox/a.dir/b 0 blocks tester1$ cd /sandbox/a.dir tester1$ touch a # su tester2 tester2$ touch c tester2$ ls -l total 3 -rw-r--r--+ 1 tester1 tstgrp 0 Mar 22 08:22 a -rw-rw-r--+ 1 tester2 tstgrp 0 Mar 22 08:21 b -rw-r--r--+ 1 tester2 tstgrp 0 Mar 22 08:22 c There is one big difference which you see here. ZFS always honors the users umask, and that is why the file was created with 644 permission rather than 664 as UFS did. ZFS has to always apply the users umask because of POSIX. So, has anybody a clue, how one is able to migrate directories from ufs to zfs without loosing functionality? I've read, that it is always possible to translate POSIX_ACLs to ACL4, but it doesn't seem to work. So I've a big migration problem ... :((( Also I haven't found anything, which explain, how ACL4 really works on Solaris, i.e. how the rules are applied. Yes, in order and only who matches. But what means 'who matches', what purpose have the 'owner@:--:--:deny' entries, what takes precendence (allow | deny | first match | last match), also I remember, that sometimes I heard, that if allow once matched, everything else is ignored - but than I' askling, why the order of the ACLEs are important. Last but not least, what purpose have the standard perms e.g. 0644 - completely ignored if ACLEs are present ? Or used as fallback, if no ACLE matches or ACLE match, but have not set anywhere e.g. the r bit ? Any hints? Regards, jel. owner@ entries control the owner permissions group@ entries control the owning group permissions everyone@ entries control everyones permissions, not just the other permissions. A little example will illustrate what everyone@ does. # chmod A=owner@:r:allow,group@:r:allow,everyone@:rwx:allow file.test # ls -V file.test -rwxrwxrwx 1 tester1 tstgrp 0 Mar 22 08:29 file.test owner@:r-:--:allow group@:r-:--:allow everyone@:rwx---:--:allow Since everyone@ is giving away rwx and there are no deny entries for either owner@ or group@ the mode of the file becomes 777 and all users can rwx the file. Now if I insert a deny before the group entry the mode will change. # chmod A1+group@:wx:deny file.test # ls -V file.test -rwxr--rwx 1 tester1 tstgrp 0 Mar 22 08:29 file.test owner@:r-:--:allow group@:-wx---:--:deny group@:r-:--:allow everyone@:rwx---:--:allow Now the anyone who isn't a member of tstgroup has rwx permission to the file. The ACEs are processed in order and once a requested permission has been granted a subsequent deny can't take it away, but if a permission has yet been granted then a deny for that permission will halt the access check. For example: # ls -V file.test -rw-r--r--+ 1 tester1 tstgrp 0 Mar 22 08:35 file.test user:tester2:rwx---:--:allow user:tester2:-w:--:deny 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 In this ACL the deny entry for 'w' for tester2 has no effect, since 'w' would have already been granted. If the first two entries had been swapped then tester2 would be denied write permission. A normal file that doesn't really have an ACL will have a number of deny entries inserted into the ACL. The reason for this is to provide POSIX compliance in that you are either in the owner class, group class or other class. The deny entries stop the access control from proceeding to the next entries. In the ACL shown below the deny entries on the group@ entry will prevent a member of tstgrp from picking up write permission from the everyone@ allow entry. # touch file.2 # ls -V file.2 -rwxr-xrwx 1 tester1 tstgrp 0 Mar 22 08:39 file.2
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: ZFS hotplug support and autoconfiguration
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:57:42PM -0700, Matt B wrote: Literally, someone should be able to make $7/hr with a stack of drives and the ability to just look or listen to a server to determin which drive needs to be replaced. This means ZFS will need to be able to control the HDD Status lights on the chassis for look, but for listen ZFS could cause the server to beep using one beep for the first slot, two beeps in rapid successions, for the second slot. A sort of lame Morse code...no device integration on ZFS's part required This is part of ongoing work with Solaris platform integration (see my last blog post) and future ZFS/FMA work. We will eventually be leveraging IPMI and SES to manage physical indicators (i.e. LEDs) in response to Solaris events. It will take some time to reach this point, however. - Eric -- 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
[zfs-discuss] asize is 300MB smaller than lsize - why?
Hi. System is snv_56 x86 32bit bash-3.00# zpool status solaris pool: solaris state: ONLINE scrub: scrub stopped with 0 errors on Thu Mar 22 16:25:23 2007 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM solaris ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t1d0ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors bash-3.00# bash-3.00# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT solaris 11.7G 5.02G 3.27G /solaris solaris/d100 1.64G 5.02G 1.64G /solaris/d100 solaris/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0 - 1.64G - solaris/[EMAIL PROTECTED]0 - 1.64G - solaris/d100-copy12.0M 5.02G 12.0M /solaris/d100-copy solaris/d100-copy1 1.31G 5.02G 1.31G /solaris/d100-copy1 solaris/d101 348M 5.02G 15.3M /solaris/d101 solaris/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 333M - 348M - solaris/[EMAIL PROTECTED]0 - 15.3M - solaris/d101-copy15.3M 5.02G 15.3M /solaris/d101-copy solaris/testws 5.13G 5.02G 5.13G /export/testws/ bash-3.00# File systems solaris/d100 and solaris/d100-copy1 contain the same data. bash-3.00# ls -l /solaris/d100 | wc -l 163 bash-3.00# ls -l /solaris/d100-copy1 | wc -l 163 bash-3.00# bash-3.00# gtar cvf /solaris/2.tar /solaris/d100-copy1 bash-3.00# gtar cvf /solaris/1.tar /solaris/d100 bash-3.00# ls -l /solaris/1.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 root other1755699200 Mar 22 16:15 /solaris/1.tar bash-3.00# ls -l /solaris/2.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 root other1755699200 Mar 22 16:19 /solaris/2.tar bash-3.00# bash-3.00# zdb -v solaris/d100 /tmp/1 bash-3.00# zdb -v solaris/d100-copy1 /tmp/2 bash-3.00# diff -u /tmp/1 /tmp/2 --- /tmp/1 Thu Mar 22 16:41:52 2007 +++ /tmp/2 Thu Mar 22 16:41:57 2007 @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ -Dataset solaris/d100 [ZPL], ID 189, cr_txg 779704, 1.64G, 807 objects +Dataset solaris/d100-copy1 [ZPL], ID 128, cr_txg 831226, 1.31G, 807 objects Object lvl iblk dblk lsize asize type - 0716K16K 416K 242K DMU dnode + 0716K16K 416K 239K DMU dnode 1116K512512 1K ZFS master node 2116K512512 1K ZFS delete queue 3116K 10.5K 10.5K 4K ZFS directory @@ -807,5 +807,5 @@ 806116K 66.5K 66.5K 66.5K ZFS plain file 807116K 67.5K 67.5K 67.5K ZFS plain file 808116K 24.5K 24.5K 24.5K ZFS plain file - 809316K 128K 1.58G 1.58G ZFS plain file + 809316K 128K 1.58G 1.24G ZFS plain file bash-3.00# bash-3.00# find /solaris/d100-copy1/ -inum 809 -ls 809 1304748 -rw-r--r-- 1 root other1692205056 Mar 22 16:05 /solaris/d100-copy1/m1 bash-3.00# find /solaris/d100/ -inum 809 -ls 809 1652825 -rw-r--r-- 1 root other1692205056 Mar 22 16:05 /solaris/d100/m1 bash-3.00# diff -b /solaris/d100/m1 /solaris/d100-copy1/m1 bash-3.00# While lsize is the same for both files asize is smaller fr the second one. Why is it? When is is possible? Both file systems have compression turned off and default recordsize. Diff claims both files to be the same. Any idea? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Why replacing a drive generates writes to other disks?
Hello Matthew, Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 9:00:28 AM, you wrote: MA Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello zfs-discuss, Subject says it all. I first checked - no IO activity at all to the pool named thumper-2. So I started replacing one drive with 'zpool replace thumper-2 c7t7d0 c4t1d0'. Now the question is why am I seeing writes to other disks than c7t7d0? MA Are you *sure* that nothing else is going on? Not even atime updates? MA Do 'zfs umount -a' and see if there's still writes to other disks. MA There may be some small amount of writes to update some metadata with MA the resilvering status. MA I just did this yesterday on a raidz2 pool and didn't see writes to the MA other disks. Maybe the code has changed since you tried? There're data in thumper-8 but no activity at all is happening to local disk on a server. I did check it with iostat and zpool iostat for dozen of seconds - no IOs at all. bash-3.00# zpool replace thumper-8 c7t7d0 c4t1d0 bash-3.00# zpool status pool: misc state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM misc ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t0d0s4 ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t4d0s4 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors pool: thumper-8 state: ONLINE status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will continue to function, possibly in a degraded state. action: Wait for the resilver to complete. scrub: resilver in progress, 0.12% done, 9h1m to go config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM thumper-8 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t0d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t0d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t0d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t0d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t0d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t1d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t1d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t1d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t1d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t1d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t5d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t5d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t5d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t5d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t5d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t5d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t6d0ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t6d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t6d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t6d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t6d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t6d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t7d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t7d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t7d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t7d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t7d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spare ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c4t1d0 INUSE currently in use c4t2d0 AVAIL errors: No known data errors bash-3.00# bash-3.00# iostat -xnz 1 [stripped out first output] extended device statistics r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device 58.20.0 195.20.0 0.0 0.10.31.6 2 10 c4t0d0 60.20.0 218.70.0 0.0 0.10.61.7 4 10 c6t0d0 72.20.0 239.80.0 0.0 0.10.21.4 1 10 c0t0d0 0.0 335.10.0 1114.8 0.0 0.10.10.2 2 5 c4t1d0 62.20.0 221.20.0 0.0 0.10.01.5 0 9 c6t1d0 66.20.0 207.20.0 0.0 0.10.01.4 0 9 c0t1d0 66.20.0 214.20.0 0.0 0.10.11.5 0 10 c5t1d0 16.10.0 45.70.0 0.0 0.00.01.3 0 2
Re: [zfs-discuss] The value of validating your backups...
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 03:35:41PM -0400, Jim Mauro wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/20/lost.data.ap/index.html I worked (briefly, left right after this, no point working there) at a place that lost the hdd in it's main server. (small company). That's ok! We have backups! Guy had been backing up the server every day for 10 years. To the same tapes. Never bought new tapes. That's when I decided working for them wasn't a good idea. ;) -brian -- The reason I don't use Gnome: every single other window manager I know of is very powerfully extensible, where you can switch actions to different mouse buttons. Guess which one is not, because it might confuse the poor users? Here's a hint: it's not the small and fast one.--Linus ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Overview (rollup) of recent activity on zfs-discuss
Special note: Here's a question I get a lot: Q: Why did you miss (or miss us) last time? A: This is a misconception that stems from the variability of the forums I cover each (semi-monthly) period. The set is not static; rather, it's based primarily on traffic volume. To illustrate, this period website-discuss didn't make the cut, but in previous periods it did. --- For background on what this is, see: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=24416#24416 http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=25200#25200 = zfs-discuss 03/01 - 03/15 = Size of all threads during period: Thread size Topic --- - 36 update on zfs boot support 19 writes lost with zfs ! 13 ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers 12 C'mon ARC, stay small... 10 X2200-M2 9 ZFS stalling problem 8 Why number of NFS threads jumps to the max value? 8 Layout for multiple large streaming writes. 7 FAULTED ZFS volume even though it is mirrored 5 ZFS party - PANIC collection 5 ZFS and Solaris as a VMWare guest 5 Cluster File System Use Cases 4 renumbering and its potential side effects. 4 Recommended setup? 4 How to interrupt a zpool scrub? 3 recover user error 3 old zfs pool and mounting 3 nv59 + HA-ZFS 3 ZFS configuration on X4500 for reliability 3 Promise Ultra133TX2? 3 Equavilent to chmod 1777 as ZFS ACl 2 ZFS info 2 DMU interfaces 2 Checksum errors in storage pool 1 zpool(1M): import -a? 1 zfs and iscsi: cannot open device: I/O error 1 system wont boot after zfs 1 mem vs numbers of file systems? 1 large numbers of zfs filesystems 1 anyone want a Solaris 10u3 core file... 1 [OT] Multipathing on Mac OS X 1 Why replacing a drive generates writes to other disks? 1 Question: Zpool replace on a disk which is getting errors 1 Hourly Consultant Needed 1 File System Filter Driver?? 1 FAULTED ZFS volume even though it ismirrored 1 CSI:Munich - How to save the world with ZFS and 12 USB Sticks 1 A little different look at filesystems ... Just looking for ideas Posting activity by person for period: # of posts By -- -- 9 rmilkowski at task.gda.pl (robert milkowski) 7 roch.bourbonnais at sun.com (roch - pae) 7 james.mauro at sun.com (jim mauro) 6 richard.elling at sun.com (richard elling) 6 lin.ling at sun.com (lin ling) 6 ddunham at taos.com (darren dunham) 5 manoj at clusterfs.com (manoj joseph) 5 leon.is.here at gmail.com (leon koll) 5 fcusack at fcusack.com (frank cusack) 4 wonko at 4amlunch.net (brian hechinger) 4 wade.stuart at fallon.com (wade stuart) 4 toby at smartgames.ca (toby thain) 4 selim.daoud at gmail.com (selim daoud) 4 matthew.ahrens at sun.com (matthew ahrens) 4 malachid at gmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?malachi_de_=c6lfweald?=) 4 johansen-osdev at sun.com (johansen-osdev) 3 stuart at iseek.com.au (stuart low) 3 spencer.shepler at sun.com (spencer shepler) 3 rayrayson at gmail.com (rayson ho) 3 opensolaris at dotd.com (jesse defer) 3 mattbreedlove at yahoo.com (matt b) 3 lscharf at vt.edu (luke scharf) 3 jasonjwwilliams at gmail.com (jason j. w. williams) 3 jamesd.wi at gmail.com (james dickens) 3 ginoruopolo at hotmail.com (gino ruopolo) 3 anjum at qp.com.qa (ayaz anjum) 2 werschlein at interlace.ch (thomas werschlein) 2 tmcmahon2 at yahoo.com (torrey mcmahon) 2 tim.foster at sun.com (tim foster) 2 sanjeev.bagewadi at sun.com (sanjeev bagewadi) 2 roch.bourbonnais at sun.com (roch bourbonnais) 2 rasputnik at gmail.com (dick davies) 2 przemolicc at poczta.fm (przemolicc) 2 mgerdts at gmail.com (mike gerdts) 2 matty91 at gmail.com (matty) 2 lori.alt at sun.com (lori alt) 2 jeff.bonwick at sun.com (jeff bonwick) 2 ivwang at mail2000.com.tw (ivan wang) 2 ian at ianshome.com (ian collins) 2 gary at genashor.com (gary gendel) 2 erblichs at earthlink.net (erblichs) 2 darren.reed at sun.com (darren reed)
Re: [zfs-discuss] asize is 300MB smaller than lsize - why?
Robert Milkowski wrote: While lsize is the same for both files asize is smaller fr the second one. Why is it? When is is possible? Both file systems have compression turned off and default recordsize. Diff claims both files to be the same. Metadata (eg, DMU dnode, and indirect blocks for ZFS plain file, which you can see broken out by using more -b's) is always compressed. Because the metadata is necessarily different (there are different block pointers, also the object numbers could be allocated differently, though not in your situation), it can compress different amounts. So, this is always possible, and in fact likely. --matt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] migration/acl4 problem
There is one big difference which you see here. ZFS always honors the users umask, and that is why the file was created with 644 permission rather than 664 as UFS did. ZFS has to always apply the users umask because of POSIX. Wow, that's a big show stopper! If I tell the users, that after the transition they have to toggle their umask before/after writing to certain directories or need to do a chmod, I'm sure they wanna hang me right on the next tree and wanna get their OS changed to Linux/Windooze... Only if your goal is to ignore a users intent on what permissions their files should be created with. Think about users who set their umask to 077. They will be upset when their files are created with a more permissive mode. The ZFS way is much more secure. What is your real desired goal? Are you just wanting anybody in a specific group to be able to read,write all files in a certain directory tree? If so, then there are other ways to achieve this, with file and directory inheritance. Isn't there a flag/property for zfs, to get back the old behavior or to enable POSIX-ACLs instead of zfs-ACLs? A force_directory_create_mode=0770,force_file_create_mode=0660' (like for samba shares) property would be even better - no need to fight with ACLs... That would be bad. That would mean that every file in a file system would be forced to be created with forced set of permissions. -Mark ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] 6410 expansion shelf
Does anyone have a 6140 expansion shelf that they can hook directly to a host? Just wondering if this configuration works. Previously I though the expansion connector was proprietary but now I see it's just fibre channel. I tried this before with a 3511 and it kind of worked but ultimately had various problems and I had to give up on it. Hoping to avoid the cost of the raid controller. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS layout for 10 disk?
got a 12 disk system - all 18gb 2 mirror for boot, now what to do with the rest? The storage is to be used for user space, web stuff and to store anything else (dump for data). I could do 5 mirrors, but thats a wasting quite a bit of space. Was thinking about raidz2, as its almost as reliable and better for space. Should i do 9 disk raidz2 with a spare, or could i do two raidz2 to get a bit of performance? Only done tests with striped mirrors which seems to give it a boost, so is it worth it with a raidz2 of this small size? Thanks for any help 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] migration/acl4 problem
On 3/22/07, Mark Shellenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, that's a big show stopper! If I tell the users, that after the transition they have to toggle their umask before/after writing to certain directories or need to do a chmod, I'm sure they wanna hang me right on the next tree and wanna get their OS changed to Linux/Windooze... Only if your goal is to ignore a users intent on what permissions their files should be created with. Think about users who set their umask to 077. They will be upset when their files are created with a more permissive mode. The ZFS way is much more secure. One of the reasons for doing this is explicitly to override the user's umask. Both up and down. Which allows users to have a strict umask while still allowing shared workspaces to function correctly. Or for them to have a generous umask while ensuring secure areas stay secure. In other words, the aim is to override any mistakes that users might make by enforcing policy using ACLs. What is your real desired goal? Are you just wanting anybody in a specific group to be able to read,write all files in a certain directory tree? If so, then there are other ways to achieve this, with file and directory inheritance. Please explain how. I've been trying to make this work for months with no success. The business requirement is that all files in a directory hierarchy be created mode 660 - read and write by owner and primary group. How do I do this? -- -Peter Tribble http://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] migration/acl4 problem
Please explain how. I've been trying to make this work for months with no success. The business requirement is that all files in a directory hierarchy be created mode 660 - read and write by owner and primary group. How do I do this? # zfs set aclmode=passthrough dataset # mkdir dir.test # chmod A+group:somegroup:desired perms:fd:allow dir.test create files and directories under dir.test. This should allow anyone in the the desired group to read/write all files, and the passthrough of aclmode stops chmod(2) from prepending deny entries. -Mark ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] migration/acl4 problem
On 3/22/07, Mark Shellenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please explain how. I've been trying to make this work for months with no success. The business requirement is that all files in a directory hierarchy be created mode 660 - read and write by owner and primary group. How do I do this? # zfs set aclmode=passthrough dataset # mkdir dir.test # chmod A+group:somegroup:desired perms:fd:allow dir.test create files and directories under dir.test. This should allow anyone in the the desired group to read/write all files, and the passthrough of aclmode stops chmod(2) from prepending deny entries. This fails in a number of ways. The apparent permissions do not show group write: -rw-r--r--+ 1 ptribble sysadmin 796 Mar 22 21:11 foo Related to this, if you transfer the files somewhere else that doesn't support these ACLs, then you lose the ACL protection and get the permission bits, which may well be incorrect. You have to specify the group. This isn't always viable. The requirement in at least some cases is that it is the user's primary group, and will vary between files and directories. Related to that, if you do a chgrp, the permissions don't get reset. The ACL isn't rewritten to change the name of the group. We need the ability for the ACL to apply to the owner and group owner of the file, not some named group. The file has an explicit ACL. That's not what we want. We just need the permissions set according to the rules defined in various policies. This leads to a number of other issues (in addition to the copy losing information as described above). Just because it has an ACL, rcp can't transfer it onto a non-ZFS filesystem: rcp bentley:/samba/peter/dir.test/foo . rcp: failed to set acl And foo doesn't get transferred at all, leading to data loss. Having an ACL makes it much harder to do an audit to verify that access is correctly controlled. Another interesting issue I just noticed in trying to work around the above problems is that find -acl doesn't give me the files - it only finds the top-level directory. This is for both zfs and ufs on S10U3 - it works fine for ufs on S10 FCS. It looks like we're between a rock and a hard place. We want to use ZFS for one project because of snapshots and data integrity - both would give us considerable advantages over ufs (not to mention filesystem size). Unfortunately, this is critical company data and the access control has to be exactly right all the time: the default ACLs as implemented in UFS are exactly what we need and work perfectly. My next question was going to be what the best way to transfer an existing set of data to zfs while preserving the ACLs, but it would appear that isn't even possible. -- -Peter Tribble http://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[2]: [zfs-discuss] asize is 300MB smaller than lsize - why?
Hello Matthew, Thursday, March 22, 2007, 8:07:14 PM, you wrote: MA Robert Milkowski wrote: While lsize is the same for both files asize is smaller fr the second one. Why is it? When is is possible? Both file systems have compression turned off and default recordsize. Diff claims both files to be the same. MA Metadata (eg, DMU dnode, and indirect blocks for ZFS plain file, MA which you can see broken out by using more -b's) is always compressed. MA Because the metadata is necessarily different (there are different block MA pointers, also the object numbers could be allocated differently, though MA not in your situation), it can compress different amounts. MA So, this is always possible, and in fact likely. Well, I don't know. DMU in both cases is so small that it doesn't really matter. Both are the sime files (diff confirms that) about 1.6GB in size and the actual on disk size is more than 20% different. That's really a big difference just for one large file. zdb -b (or -bbb) doesn't work here (b56): bash-3.00# zdb -b solaris/d100 809 Dataset solaris/d100 [ZPL], ID 189, cr_txg 779704, 1.64G, 807 objects bash-3.00# zdb -bbb solaris/d100 809 Dataset solaris/d100 [ZPL], ID 189, cr_txg 779704, 1.64G, 807 objects bash-3.00# zdb -bbbvvv solaris/d100 809 Dataset solaris/d100 [ZPL], ID 189, cr_txg 779704, 1.64G, 807 objects bash-3.00# zdb - solaris/d100 809 /tmp/a bash-3.00# zdb - solaris/d100-copy1 809 /tmp/b bash-3.00# cat /tmp/a | wc -l 13070 bash-3.00# cat /tmp/b | wc -l 10295 bash-3.00# tail -10 /tmp/a 64d0 L0 0:21342:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831385 64d2 L0 0:21344:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831385 64d4 L0 0:21346:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831385 64d6 L0 0:21348:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831385 64d8 L0 0:2134a:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831385 64da L0 0:2134c:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831385 64dc L0 0:ea1c:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831388 segment [, 6500) size 1.58G bash-3.00# tail -10 /tmp/b 64d0 L0 0:116a6:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831417 64d2 L0 0:116a8:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831417 64d4 L0 0:116aa:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831417 64d6 L0 0:116ac:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831417 64d8 L0 0:116ae:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831417 64da L0 0:116b0:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831417 64dc L0 0:116b2:2 2L/2P F=1 B=831417 segment [14c4, 2600) size 276M bash-3.00# What's the last line about? Also only /tmp/a has a Deadlist entries: Deadlist: 33 entries, 235K (114K/114K comp) Item 0: 0:191e0ea00:e00 4000L/e00P F=0 B=831102 Item 1: 0:ea1a2000:800 4000L/800P F=0 B=831388 Item 2: 0:191d58000:1000 4000L/1000P F=0 B=831102 Item 3: 0:2507b2200:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831294 Item 4: 0:191e06200:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 5: 0:191e07400:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 6: 0:250186000:1000 4000L/1000P F=0 B=831294 Item 7: 0:191e0b800:e00 4000L/e00P F=0 B=831102 Item 8: 0:191e0d800:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 9: 0:191e03e00:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 10: 0:250188000:1000 4000L/1000P F=0 B=831294 Item 11: 0:191e09800:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 12: 0:191e10a00:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 13: 0:191e02c00:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 14: 0:191e05000:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 15: 0:191e08600:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 16: 0:2507b3400:e00 4000L/e00P F=0 B=831294 Item 17: 0:191d57000:1000 4000L/1000P F=0 B=831102 Item 18: 0:191d56000:1000 4000L/1000P F=0 B=831102 Item 19: 0:250189000:1000 4000L/1000P F=0 B=831294 Item 20: 0:191d59000:1000 4000L/1000P F=0 B=831102 Item 21: 0:191e0f800:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 22: 0:191e12e00:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 23: 0:191e11c00:1200 4000L/1200P F=0 B=831102 Item 24: 0:191e0aa00:e00 4000L/e00P F=0 B=831102 Item 25: 0:25339a400:e00 4000L/e00P F=0 B=831342 Item 26: 0:ea1a2800:800 4000L/800P F=0 B=831388 Item 27: 0:ea1a1c00:400 4000L/400P F=0 B=831388 Item 28: 0:ea1a3000:400 4000L/400P F=0 B=831388 Item 29: 0:ea1a3400:400 4000L/400P F=0 B=831388 Item 30: 0:ea1a3800:400 4000L/400P F=0 B=831388 Item 31: 0:ea1a3c00:400 4000L/400P F=0 B=831388 Item 32: 0:ea1a4000:200 400L/200P F=0 B=831388 What are those? And even if that is to be expected (such a big difference in actual space utilization) something is far from perfect here. Both file systems are in the same pool and over 20% difference in size on just one large file is huge - perhaps some
Re: [zfs-discuss] asize is 300MB smaller than lsize - why?
Robert Milkowski wrote: What's the last line about? Ah -- I think that may help explain things. It may be that your file has some runs of zeros in it, which are represented as holes in d100-copy1/m1, but as blocks of zeros in the d100/m1. It begs the question, what is this file and how did you create the copy? Also only /tmp/a has a Deadlist entries: That's because you have snapshots of d100 but not of d100-copy1, and apparently the contents of the d100 fs have changed since the most recent snapshot. --matt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] asize is 300MB smaller than lsize - why?
Hello Matthew, Friday, March 23, 2007, 12:01:12 AM, you wrote: MA Robert Milkowski wrote: What's the last line about? MA Ah -- I think that may help explain things. It may be that your file MA has some runs of zeros in it, which are represented as holes in MA d100-copy1/m1, but as blocks of zeros in the d100/m1. It begs the MA question, what is this file and how did you create the copy? This file is full of 0s - it was created by dd if=/dev/zero of=/solaris/d100/m1 bs=32k Then file system solaris/d100 was replicated in a similar way to zfs send|zfs recv into solaris/d100-copy1. Now I wonder how holes were created and why not as entire file... Also only /tmp/a has a Deadlist entries: MA That's because you have snapshots of d100 but not of d100-copy1, and MA apparently the contents of the d100 fs have changed since the most MA recent snapshot. thanks for info -- 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] ZFS layout for 10 disk?
On 3/23/07, John-Paul Drawneek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got the same consideration at the moment. Should i do 9 disk raidz2 with a spare, or could i do two raidz2 to get a bit of performance? Only done tests with striped mirrors which seems to give it a boost, so is it worth it with a raidz2 of this small size? 10 disks with two raidz2 pools leaves no room for a spare. You get 6 disks of storage and can lose any two disks before worrying. With Raid 10 you get 5 disks of storage and can loss anyone disk before worrying, but get better performance. I've thought about get the following: Raidz2 over 5 disks and Raid 10 over 4 disks with one spare. Use the mirror for small random read stuff, like maildir and use the raidz2 pool for iscsi system images. See also: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#Should_I_Configure_a_RAID-Z.2C_RAID-Z2.2C_or_a_Mirrored_Storage_Pool.3F and http://blogs.sun.com/roch/date/20060531 - WHEN TO (AND NOT TO) USE RAID-Z and http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_raid_recommendations_space_performance Nicholas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] C'mon ARC, stay small...
Jim Mauro wrote:
All righty...I set c_max to 512MB, c to 512MB, and p to 256MB...
arc::print -tad
{
...
c02e29e8 uint64_t size = 0t299008
c02e29f0 uint64_t p = 0t16588228608
c02e29f8 uint64_t c = 0t33176457216
c02e2a00 uint64_t c_min = 0t1070318720
c02e2a08 uint64_t c_max = 0t33176457216
...
}
c02e2a08 /Z 0x2000
arc+0x48: 0x7b9789000 = 0x2000
c02e29f8 /Z 0x2000
arc+0x38: 0x7b9789000 = 0x2000
c02e29f0 /Z 0x1000
arc+0x30: 0x3dcbc4800 = 0x1000
arc::print -tad
{
...
c02e29e8 uint64_t size = 0t299008
c02e29f0 uint64_t p = 0t268435456 -- p
is 256MB
c02e29f8 uint64_t c = 0t536870912 -- c
is 512MB
c02e2a00 uint64_t c_min = 0t1070318720
c02e2a08 uint64_t c_max = 0t536870912--- c_max is
512MB
...
}
After a few runs of the workload ...
arc::print -d size
size = 0t536788992
Ah - looks like we're out of the woods. The ARC remains clamped at 512MB.
Is there a way to set these fields using /etc/system?
Or does this require a new or modified init script to
run and do the above with each boot?
Darren
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] /tmp on ZFS?
Is this something that should work? The assumption is that there is a dedicated raw SWAP slice and after install /tmp (which will be on /) will be unmounted and mounted to zpool/tmp (just like zpool/home) Thoughts on this? 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: ZFS layout for 10 disk?
On 3/23/07, John-Paul Drawneek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can i do to Raidz2 over 5 and a Raidz2 over 4 with a spare for them all? or two Raidz2 over 4 with 2 spare? This is a question I was planning to ask as well. Does zfs allow a hot spare to be allocated to multiple pools or as a system hot spare. Or would this be done manually with a cron script. Nicholas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS layout for 10 disk?
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 12:11:38PM +1200, Nicholas Lee wrote: On 3/23/07, John-Paul Drawneek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can i do to Raidz2 over 5 and a Raidz2 over 4 with a spare for them all? or two Raidz2 over 4 with 2 spare? This is a question I was planning to ask as well. Does zfs allow a hot spare to be allocated to multiple pools or as a system hot spare. Or would this be done manually with a cron script. Nicholas Spares can belong to multiple pools (they can only be actively spared in one pool, obviously). - Eric -- 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] /tmp on ZFS?
Matt B wrote: Is this something that should work? The assumption is that there is a dedicated raw SWAP slice and after install /tmp (which will be on /) will be unmounted and mounted to zpool/tmp (just like zpool/home) Thoughts on this? you are aware that /tmp by default resides in memory these days? putting /tmp on disk can have quite severe impact on performance. Michael -- Michael Schuster Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion' ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] migration/acl4 problem
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:34:15PM -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: There is one big difference which you see here. ZFS always honors the users umask, and that is why the file was created with 644 permission rather than 664 as UFS did. ZFS has to always apply the users umask because of POSIX. Wow, that's a big show stopper! If I tell the users, that after the transition they have to toggle their umask before/after writing to certain directories or need to do a chmod, I'm sure they wanna hang me right on the next tree and wanna get their OS changed to Linux/Windooze... Only if your goal is to ignore a users intent on what permissions their files should be created with. Think about users who set their umask to 077. They will be upset when their files are created with a more permissive mode. The ZFS way is much more secure. Nope - you're talking about a different thing. I did not say, that these ACLs would be set on every possible fs|directory on the system! We and several companies I worked for use it to have a shared data dir you might think of it as a kind of workgroup based CVS, where the members of the owning workgroup are in the role of committers. The rationale for this is obvious and actually the same as for CVS: the only thing that counts is, what one can find in /data/$workgroup/** So no need to waist time for asking, who has finally the latest version of a document or the version, which should be used wrt. communication with none-internal entities, etc. and furthermore it allows to reduce the huge pile of redundant data extremly... We used this pattern/policy successfully for more than 10 year: for window users it was achieved easily by using samba, on Linux servers using XFS ACLs and on Solaris servers using UFS ACLs. ZFS breaks it. And since Solaris has no smbmnt - we can't even get a workaround, which makes more or less sense... What is your real desired goal? Are you just wanting anybody in a specific group to be able to read,write all files in a certain directory tree? If so, then there are other ways to achieve this, with file and directory inheritance. May be I didn't use the right settings, but I played around with it before sending the original posting (zfs aclmode intentionally set to passthrough and added fd flags), but this didn't work either. So a working example/demo would be helpful ... Isn't there a flag/property for zfs, to get back the old behavior or to enable POSIX-ACLs instead of zfs-ACLs? A force_directory_create_mode=0770,force_file_create_mode=0660' (like for samba shares) property would be even better - no need to fight with ACLs... That would be bad. That would mean that every file in a file system would be forced to be created with forced set of permissions. And that's exactly the business requirement. And even more a practical expericence: Assume user always have to change their umask before writing to /data/workgroup/**. Since people are usually a little bit lazy and are focused on get the job done, it doesn't take very long until the have added umask 007 to their .login/.profile whatever. But now, anybody in the same workgroup is also able to read the users private data in its $HOME, e.g. $HOME/Mail/* ... So in theory you might be right, but in practice it turns out, that you are achieving exactly the opposite... Regards, jel. -- Otto-von-Guericke University http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/ Department of Computer Science Geb. 29 R 027, Universitaetsplatz 2 39106 Magdeburg, Germany Tel: +49 391 67 12768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS layout for 10 disk?
John-Paul Drawneek wrote: got a 12 disk system - all 18gb 2 mirror for boot, now what to do with the rest? The storage is to be used for user space, web stuff and to store anything else (dump for data). I could do 5 mirrors, but thats a wasting quite a bit of space. Was thinking about raidz2, as its almost as reliable and better for space. Should i do 9 disk raidz2 with a spare, or could i do two raidz2 to get a bit of performance? Only done tests with striped mirrors which seems to give it a boost, so is it worth it with a raidz2 of this small size? Thanks for any help Consider that 18GByte disks are old and their failure rate will increase dramatically over the next few years. Do something to have redundancy. If raidz2 works for your workload, I'd go with that. BTW, I was just at Fry's, new 500 GByte Seagate drives are $180. Prices for new disks tend to approach $150 (USD) after which they are replaced by larger drives and the inventory is price reduced until gone. A 2-new disk mirror will be more reliable than any reasonable combination of 5-year old disks. Food for thought. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] asize is 300MB smaller than lsize - why?
Robert Milkowski wrote:
MA Ah -- I think that may help explain things. It may be that your file
MA has some runs of zeros in it, which are represented as holes in
MA d100-copy1/m1, but as blocks of zeros in the d100/m1. It begs the
MA question, what is this file and how did you create the copy?
This file is full of 0s - it was created by
dd if=/dev/zero of=/solaris/d100/m1 bs=32k
Then file system solaris/d100 was replicated in a similar way to zfs
send|zfs recv into solaris/d100-copy1.
Now I wonder how holes were created and why not as entire file...
Hmm, that's definitely curious. What do you mean by a similar way to
zfs send | zfs recv? Can you send me the full output of your 'zdb
- solaris/d100{-copy1} 809'?
--matt
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Is there any performance problem with hard links in ZFS?
Viktor Turskyi wrote: Thank you very much for the consultation. The information was very useful. You're welcome! And I have one more questions about ZFS file attributes. I have found such information 2^56 — Number of attributes of a file in ZFS but i cant found any information mechanism of creating such attributes. The situation is next: I want to save a lot of file information not in database but in file attributes. File attributes setting will be processing by a Perl or C program. Is there any way to do this? See fsattr(5) --matt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Proposal: ZFS hotplug supportandautoconfiguration
Consider a server [with] three drives, A, B, and C, in which A and B are mirrored and C is not. Pull out A, B, and C, and re-insert them as A, C, and B. If B is slow to come up for some reason, ZFS will see C in place of B, and happily reformat it into a mirror of A. (Or am I reading this incorrectly?) Again, thanks to devids, the autoreplace code would not kick in here at all. You would end up with an identical pool. Is this because C would already have a devid? If I insert an unlabeled disk, what happens? What if B takes five minutes to spin up? If it never does? I hope that there's a way to disable the periodic probing of hot spares. Spinning these drives up often might be highly annoying in some environments (though useful in others, since it could also verify that the disk is responding normally). Why is this highly annoying? The frequency would be rather low, would have no effect on performance, and you're gaining the ability to know whether your hot spares aare actually working. Well, in my home office it would be highly annoying if I got to hear spin-up/spin-down sounds every half hour. The ability to tune the time interval would probably make this OK, though. I could live with once a day or once a week. Anton 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: Proposal: ZFS hotplug
Consider a server [with] three drives, A, B, and C, in which A and B are mirrored and C is not. Pull out A, B, and C, and re-insert them as A, C, and B. If B is slow to come up for some reason, ZFS will see C in place of B, and happily reformat it into a mirror of A. (Or am I reading this incorrectly?) Again, thanks to devids, the autoreplace code would not kick in here at all. You would end up with an identical pool. Is this because C would already have a devid? Well, it's because all the members of the ZFS pool have information about the pool and their place in it. The path of a member isn't important. If I insert an unlabeled disk, what happens? Nothing. If ZFS can't find a signature on it, it knows it's not part of a ZFS pool. What if B takes five minutes to spin up? That sounds like something for FMA to deal better with. It might hang for a period of time if the driver doesn't respond quickly. If it never does? At some point the device driver needs to respond. If the device doesn't become ready, it'll have to time out and be noted as a failure. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
