date:20100816

Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:

 (The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden
 license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the
 Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Solaris kernel.  I

There is only a need for a mind change at the Linux side. There is no need for 
a license change. The only way to integrate BSD code into the Linux kernel is 
creating a collective work. The same method works for CDDL code.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool and filesystem version list, OpenSolaris builds list

Haudy Kazemi kaze0...@umn.edu wrote:

 EON (Embedded ON) NAS (Network Attached Storage)
 EON ver 0.60.0 is based on build 130
 EON ver 0.59.9 is based on build 129
 EON ver 0.59.5 is based on build 125
 EON ver 0.59.4 is based on build 124
 EON ver 0.59.3 is based on build 122
 EON ver 0.59.2 is based on build 119
 EON ver 0.59.1 is based on build 114
 EON ver 0.59.0 is based on build 110
 EON ver 0.58.9 is based on build 104

 SchilliX 0.6.3 is based on build 83
 SchilliX 0.4.4 is based on build 33

And SchilliX-0.7 is based on build 130.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Edward Ned Harvey

 From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com]
 Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:17 PM
 
 (The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden
 license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the
 Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Solaris kernel.  I

Of course this has been discussed extensively, but I believe, the reasons for 
ZFS not to be in Linux kernel go beyond just the license incompatibility.

ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS, and 
CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on.  So ZFS steps on 
a lot of linux peoples' toes.  They already have code to do this, or that, why 
should they kill off all these other projects, and turn the world upside down, 
and bow down and acknowledge that anyone else did anything better than what 
they did?

No, they just want a copy-on-write filesystem, and nothing more.  Something 
which more closely complies to the architecture model that they're already 
using.

Something which doesn't hurt their ego when they accept it...  And of course by 
they I'm mostly referring to Linus.  And all the people who work on kernel, 
ext fs, software raid, and all these other things which already exist in a 
More Linuxy way...

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Replaced pool device shows up in zpool status

2010-08-16 Thread Matthias Appel


Hi all,

yesterday I had to remove a zpool device due to controller errors (I
tried to replace the harddisk, but checksum errors occured again) so I
connected a fresh harddisk to another controller port.

Now I have the problem that zpool status looks as following:

r...@storage:~# zpool status
  pool: performance
 state: DEGRADED
 scrub: none requested
config:

NAME  STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
performance   DEGRADED 0 0 0
  mirror  ONLINE   0 0 0
c1t1d0ONLINE   0 0 0
c2d0  ONLINE   0 0 0
  mirror  DEGRADED 0 0 0
replacing UNAVAIL  0 0 0  insufficient replicas
  c1t3d0s0/o  UNAVAIL  0 0 0  cannot open
  c1t3d0  UNAVAIL  0 0 0  cannot open
c2d1  ONLINE   0 0 0

c1t3d0 is the disk which was replaced (It should now be c1t0d0..it shows
up like this in format).

After attaching the new device a resilvering occured, but it did not
show, what was resilvered...It only showed the remainig time.
zpool status -x also says, that all pools are ok (what I cannot believe).

r...@storage:~# zpool status -x
all pools are healthy


Can anybody tell me, why I cannot replace the dead c1t3d0 with c1t0d0.
I tried zpool replace, tried to add c1t0d0 as hot spare (which worked,
but it did not resilver) and tried to zpool clear the pool, but c1t3d0
remains.

Can anybody tell me how to get rid of c1t3d0 and heal my zpool?



___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread David Magda

On Sun, August 15, 2010 21:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:

 Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why
 Oracle would continue to invest in both.  Given that ZFS is the more
 mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort
 to ZFS and leave btrfs to die.

Or have someone else (RH, IBM, Google) fund it. Other Linux users and
vendors would probably prefer to have a file system which has a broader
developer community: currently ZFS tends to be highly concentrated at
Oracle. OEL may default to ZFS, but given the dozens and dozens of file
systems available with Linux, I'm sure other distributions may select
other ones.


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Ross Walker

On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:

 ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS, and 
 CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on.  So ZFS steps 
 on a lot of linux peoples' toes.  They already have code to do this, or that, 
 why should they kill off all these other projects, and turn the world upside 
 down, and bow down and acknowledge that anyone else did anything better than 
 what they did?

Actually ZFS doesn't do NFS/CIFS/iSCSI those shareX options merely execute 
scripts to perform the OS operations as appropriate.

BTRFS also handles the RAID of the hard disks as ZFS does.

No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will 
re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.

I think the market NEEDs file system competition in order to drive innovation 
so it would be beneficial for both FSs to continue together into the future.

-Ross

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread David Magda

On Mon, August 16, 2010 09:06, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

 ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS,
 and CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on.  So ZFS
 steps on a lot of linux peoples' toes.  They already have code to do this,
 or that, why should they kill off all these other projects, and turn the
 world upside down, and bow down and acknowledge that anyone else did
 anything better than what they did?

Well, to be fair, given the multitude of file systems available in the
Linux kernel, those sub-systems would still be needed. Even with Solaris,
though NFS and CIFS functionality is linked with ZFS, you still have to
deal with UFS and tmpfs, and have NFS work with those.

 No, they just want a copy-on-write filesystem, and nothing more.
 Something which more closely complies to the architecture model that
 they're already using.

Btrfs does more than just COW. They also have RAID-like functionality:

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Using_Btrfs_with_Multiple_Devices

At the end of the day, they'll be rough feature-parity between the two,
even though the implementations will be different:

http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] EMC migration and zfs

2010-08-16 Thread Mike DeMarco

Bump this up. Anyone?
-- 
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] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Ross Walker

On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com 
wrote:

 Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why
 Oracle would continue to invest in both.  Given that ZFS is the more
 mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort
 to ZFS and leave btrfs to die.

I can see Oracle ejecting BTRFS from it's folds, but seriously doubt it will 
die. BTRFS is now mainlined into the Linux kernel and I will bet that currently 
a lot of it's development is already coming from outside parties and Oracle is 
simply acting as the commit maintainer.

Linux is an evolving OS, what determines a FS's continued existence is the 
public's adoption rate of that FS. If nobody ends up using it then the kernel 
will drop it in which case it will eventually die.

-Ross

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HTPC

2010-08-16 Thread Mike DeMarco

What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost 
more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over $1,000 
dollars, for what.
-- 
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] ZFS pool and filesystem version list, OpenSolaris builds list

2010-08-16 Thread Mark J Musante



I keep the pool version information up-to-date here:

http://blogs.sun.com/mmusante/entry/a_zfs_taxonomy

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Haudy Kazemi wrote:


Hello,

This is a consolidated list of ZFS pool and filesystem versions, along with 
the builds and systems they are found in. It is based on multiple online 
sources. Some of you may find it useful in figuring out where things are at 
across the spectrum of systems supporting ZFS including FreeBSD and FUSE. At 
the end of this message there is a list of the builds OpenSolaris releases 
and some OpenSolaris derivatives are based on. The list is sort-of but not 
strictly comma delimited, and of course may contain errata.


-hk


Solaris Nevada xx = snv_xx = onnv_xx ~= testing builds for Solaris 11
SXCE = Solaris Express Community Edition

ZFS Pool Version, Where found (multiple), Notes about this version
1, Nevada/SXCE 36, Solaris 10 6/06, Initial ZFS on-disk format integrated on 
10/31/05. During the next six months of internal use, there were a few 
on-disk format changes that did not result in a version number change, but 
resulted in a flag day since earlier versions could not read the newer 
changes. For '6389368 fat zap should use 16k blocks (with backwards 
compatibility)' and '6390677 version number checking makes upgrades 
challenging'
2, Nevada/SXCE 38, Solaris 10 10/06 (build 9), Ditto blocks (replicated 
metadata) for '6410698 ZFS metadata needs to be more highly replicated (ditto 
blocks)'
3, Nevada/SXCE 42, Solaris 10 11/06 (build 3), Hot spares and double parity 
RAID-Z for '6405966 Hot Spare support in ZFS' and '6417978 double parity 
RAID-Z a.k.a. RAID6' and '6288488 du reports misleading size on RAID-Z'
4, Nevada/SXCE 62, Solaris 10 8/07, zpool history for '6529406 zpool history 
needs to bump the on-disk version' and '6343741 want to store a command 
history on disk'
5, Nevada/SXCE 62, Solaris 10 10/08, gzip compression algorithm for '6536606 
gzip compression for ZFS'
6, Nevada/SXCE 62, Solaris 10 10/08, FreeBSD 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, bootfs pool 
property for '4929890 ZFS boot support for the x86 platform' and '6479807 
pools need properties'
7, Nevada/SXCE 68, Solaris 10 10/08, Separate intent log devices for '6339640 
Make ZIL use NVRAM when available'
8, Nevada/SXCE 69, Solaris 10 10/08, Delegated administration for '6349470 
investigate non-root restore/backup'
9, Nevada/SXCE 77, Solaris 10 10/08, refquota and refreservation properties 
for '6431277 want filesystem-only quotas' and '6483677 need immediate 
reservation' and '6617183 CIFS Service - PSARC 2006/715'
10, Nevada/SXCE 78, OpenSolaris 2008.05, Solaris 10 5/09 (Solaris 10 10/08 
supports ZFS version 10 except for cache devices), Cache devices for '6536054 
second tier (external) ARC'
11, Nevada/SXCE 94, OpenSolaris 2008.11, Solaris 10 10/09, Improved 
scrub/resilver performance for '6343667 scrub/resilver has to start over when 
a snapshot is taken'
12, Nevada/SXCE 96, OpenSolaris 2008.11, Solaris 10 10/09, added Snapshot 
properties for '6701797 want user properties on snapshot'
13, Nevada/SXCE 98, OpenSolaris 2008.11, Solaris 10 10/09, FreeBSD 7.3+, 
FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE, Linux ZFS-FUSE 0.5.0, added usedby properties for 
'6730799 want user properties on snapshots' and 'PSARC/2008/518 ZFS space 
accounting enhancements'
14, Nevada/SXCE 103, OpenSolaris 2009.06, Solaris 10 10/09, FreeBSD 8-STABLE, 
8.1-RELEASE, 9-CURRENT, added passthrough-x aclinherit property support for 
'6765166 Need to provide mechanism to optionally inherit ACE_EXECUTE' and 
'PSARC 2008/659 New ZFS passthrough-x ACL inheritance rules'
15, Nevada/SXCE 114, added quota property support for '6501037 want 
user/group quotas on ZFS' and 'PSARC 2009/204 ZFS user/group quotas  space 
accounting'
16, Nevada/SXCE 116, Linux ZFS-FUSE 0.6.0, added stmf property support for 
'6736004 zvols need an additional property for comstar support'
17, Nevada/SXCE 120, added triple-parity RAID-Z for '6854612 triple-parity 
RAID-Z'
18, Nevada/SXCE 121, Linux zfs-0.4.9, added ZFS snapshot holds for '6803121 
want user-settable refcounts on snapshots'
19, Nevada/SXCE 125, added ZFS log device removal option for '6574286 
removing a slog doesn't work'
20, Nevada/SXCE 128, added zle compression to support dedupe in version 21 
for 'PSARC/2009/571 ZFS Deduplication Properties'
21, Nevada/SXCE 128, added deduplication properties for 'PSARC/2009/571 ZFS 
Deduplication Properties'
22, Nevada/SXCE 128a, Nexenta Core Platform Beta 2, Beta 3, added zfs receive 
properties for 'PSARC/2009/510 ZFS Received Properties'
23, Nevada 135, Linux ZFS-FUSE 0.6.9, added slim ZIL support for '6595532 ZIL 
is too talkative'
24, Nevada 137, added support for system attributes for '6716117 ZFS needs 
native system attribute infrastructure' and '6516171 zpl symlinks should have 
their own object type'

25, Nevada ??, Nexenta Core Platform RC1
26, Nevada 141, Linux zfs-0.5.0


ZFS Pool Version, OpenSolaris, Solaris 10, Description
1 snv_36 Solaris 10 6/06

Re: [zfs-discuss] Replaced pool device shows up in zpool status

2010-08-16 Thread Mark J Musante


On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Matthias Appel wrote:


Can anybody tell me how to get rid of c1t3d0 and heal my zpool?


Can you do a zpool detach performance c1t3d0/o?  If that works, then 
zpool replace performance c1t3d0 c1t0d0 should replace the bad disk with 
the new hot spare.  Once the resilver completes, do a zpool detach 
performance c1t3d0 to remove the bad disk and promote the hot spare to a 
full member of the pool.


Or, if that doesn't work, try the same thing with c1t3d0 and c1t3d0/o 
swapped around.


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] EMC migration and zfs

2010-08-16 Thread Richard Elling

In general, ZFS can handle importing a pool from devices with different
paths.  This has been true for many years.

On Aug 12, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote:

 We are going to be migrating to a new EMC frame using Open Replicator. 

I have no idea what Open Replicator is.  Perhaps nobody else does either?

 ZFS is sitting on volumes that are running MPXIO. So the controller 
 number/disk number is going to change when we reboot the server. I would like 
 to konw if anyone has done this and will the zfs filesystems just work and 
 find the new disk id numbers when we go to zfs import the pool.
 
 Our process would be:
 zfs export any and all pools on the server
 shutdown the server
 re-zone the storage to the new EMC frame.
 EMC on the backend will present the old drives through the new frame/drives 
 using Open Replicator.
 boot the server to single user mode
 zfs import the pools
 reboot the server.
 -- 
 This message posted from opensolaris.org
 ___
 zfs-discuss mailing list
 zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
 http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

-- 
Richard Elling
rich...@nexenta.com   +1-760-896-4422
Enterprise class storage for everyone
www.nexenta.com



___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Gary Mills

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:54:13PM -0700, Erast wrote:
 
 On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
 
 I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
 get it.  The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be
 releasing nightly snapshots.  It appears they've stopped Illumos in its
 tracks before it really even got started (perhaps that explains the
 timing of this press release)
 
 Wrong. Be patient, with the pace of current Illumos development it soon 
 will have all the closed binaries liberated and ready to sync up with 
 promised ON code drops as dictated by GPL and CDDL licenses.

Is this what you mean, from:

http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Main/opensolaris_license

Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available
in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and
that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this
License. You must include a copy of this License with every copy of
the Source Code form of the Covered Software You distribute or
otherwise make available. You must inform recipients of any such
Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can obtain such
Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or
through a medium customarily used for software exchange.

-- 
-Gary Mills--Unix Group--Computer and Network Services-
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:


 On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:

  Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
  any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes).  They can't
  retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
  can put a different (non-OSS) license on any new code.

 That's true.

 However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they must
 release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL.


BTRFS can be under any license they want, they own the code.  There's
absolutely nothing preventing them from dual-licensing it.



 So, if they're going to use it in any way as a product, they have to
 release the source.  If they want to use it just internally they can do
 anything they want, of course.


No, no they don't.  You're under the misconception that they no longer own
the code just because they released a copy as GPL.  That is not true.
 Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release modifications if they wish
to distribute it due to the GPL.  The original author is free to license the
code as many times under as many conditions as they like, and release or not
release subsequent changes they make to their own code.

I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.

--Tim
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HTPC

2010-08-16 Thread Freddie Cash

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarco mikej...@yahoo.com wrote:
 What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost 
 more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over 
 $1,000 dollars, for what.

Because they include a motherboard and processor.  :)  The high-end
RAID controllers include their own CPUs and RAM for doing all the RAID
stuff in hardware.

The low-end RAID controllers (if you can even really call them RAID
controllers) do all the RAID stuff in software via a driver installed
in the OS, running on the host computer's CPU.

And the ones in the middle have simple XOR engines for doing the
RAID.stuff in hardware.

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwc...@gmail.com
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
 No, no they don't.  You're under the misconception that they no
 longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL.  That
 is not true.  Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release
 modifications if they wish to distribute it due to the GPL.  The
 original author is free to license the code as many times under as
 many conditions as they like, and release or not release subsequent
 changes they make to their own code.
 
 I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
 dual-licensed BTRFS.

Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it... 

As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.

Ray
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:


 On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:

  Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
  any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes).  They can't
  retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
  can put a different (non-OSS) license on any new code.

 That's true.

 However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they must
 release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL.

This claim would only be true in case that Oracle does not own the copyright
on its' code...

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread C. Bergström


Tim Cook wrote:



On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net 
mailto:d...@dd-b.net wrote:



On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:

 Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to
release
 any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes).  They can't
 retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
 can put a different (non-OSS) license on any new code.

That's true.

However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code,
they must
release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL.


BTRFS can be under any license they want, they own the code.  There's 
absolutely nothing preventing them from dual-licensing it.
 



So, if they're going to use it in any way as a product, they have to
release the source.  If they want to use it just internally they
can do
anything they want, of course.


No, no they don't.  You're under the misconception that they no longer 
own the code just because they released a copy as GPL.  That is not 
true.  Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release modifications if 
they wish to distribute it due to the GPL.  The original author is 
free to license the code as many times under as many conditions as 
they like, and release or not release subsequent changes they make to 
their own code.


I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed 
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much 
already to be available under anything, but GPLv2

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:

  I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
  dual-licensed BTRFS.

 Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
 kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it... 

 As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.

No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
own the code.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
 Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
 
   I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
   dual-licensed BTRFS.
 
  Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
  kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it... 
 
  As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
 
 No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
 own the code.
 

Maybe there's not legally, but practically there is.  If they're not
GPL compliant, why would Linus or his lieutenants continue to allow the
code to remain part of the Linux kernel?

And what purpose would btrfs serve Oracle outside of the Linux kernel?

Ray
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead


On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:48, Joerg Schilling wrote:
 Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:

  I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
  dual-licensed BTRFS.

 Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
 kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it...

 As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.

 No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
 own the code.

Ray's point is, how long would BTRFS remain in the Linux kernel in that case?
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.comwrote:

 On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
  No, no they don't.  You're under the misconception that they no
  longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL.  That
  is not true.  Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release
  modifications if they wish to distribute it due to the GPL.  The
  original author is free to license the code as many times under as
  many conditions as they like, and release or not release subsequent
  changes they make to their own code.
 
  I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
  dual-licensed BTRFS.

 Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
 kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it...

 As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.



Why would they obviously want that?  When the project started, they were
competing with Sun.  They now own Solaris; they no longer have a need to
produce a competing product.  I would be EXTREMELY surprised to see Oracle
continue to push Linux as hard as they have in the past, over the next 5
years.

--Tim
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead


On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:


 On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:

  Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to
 release
  any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes).  They can't
  retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
  can put a different (non-OSS) license on any new code.

 That's true.

 However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they
 must
 release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL.

 This claim would only be true in case that Oracle does not own the
 copyright
 on its' code...

Oops, yeah, you're right there; the copyright holder can grant additional
licenses and do things itself.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:

  I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed 
  BTRFS.
 No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much 
 already to be available under anything, but GPLv2

If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed about legal 
background. 

The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it.

If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the code and can 
relicense it under any license they like.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread C. Bergström


Joerg Schilling wrote:

C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:

  
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed 
BTRFS.
  
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much 
already to be available under anything, but GPLv2



If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed about legal 
background. 


The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it.

If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the code and can 
relicense it under any license they like.
  
Why don't all you license trolls go crawl under a rock.. Are you so 
dense to believe


1) Only Oracle devs have by now contributed to btrfs?
2) That it's so tightly intermingled with the linux kernel code you 
can't separate the two of them.


Just STFU already and go check commit logs and source if you don't believe..

ZFS-discuss != BTRFS+Oracle-license troll-ml

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:

  As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
 
  No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
  own the code.

 Ray's point is, how long would BTRFS remain in the Linux kernel in that case?

Such a license change can happen at any time. The Linux folks have no grant 
that it would not happen. 

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
 Why would they obviously want that?  When the project started, they
 were competing with Sun.  They now own Solaris; they no longer have a
 need to produce a competing product.  I would be EXTREMELY surprised
 to see Oracle continue to push Linux as hard as they have in the
 past, over the next 5 years.
 
 --Tim

Well, we're getting into the realm of opinion here.. but if I'm a
decision maker at Oracle, I'm not abandoning Linux, nor my potential
influence in the future de facto Linux filesystem.

Oracle can gear Solaris towards big iron / Enterprisey, niche
solutions, but I'd bet a lot that they're not abandoning the Linux
space by a longshot just because they own Solaris...

But your opinion is as valid as mine on this topic... :)

Ray
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:58:20AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
 On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
  On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
   Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
   
 I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
 dual-licensed BTRFS.
   
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it... 
   
As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
   
   No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
   own the code.
   
  
  Maybe there's not legally, but practically there is.  If they're not
  GPL compliant, why would Linus or his lieutenants continue to allow the
  code to remain part of the Linux kernel?
  
  And what purpose would btrfs serve Oracle outside of the Linux kernel?
 
 If they wanted to port it to Solaris under a difference license, they
 could.  This may actually be a backup plan in case the NetApp suit goes
 badly.  But this is pure conjecture.

btrfs is often described as the next default Linux filesystem (by Ted
T'So and others).  It seems odd to me that Oracle wouldn't have an
interest in retaining a controlling interest (as in retaining the
primary engineers) in its development and ensuring it stays in the
Linux kernel and meets these expectations...

Seems like an excellent long-term strategy to me anyways!

Anyways, getting a bit off topic here I suppose, though it's an
interesting discussion. :)

 
   - Garrett
 
  
  Ray

Ray
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
 
   I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed 
   BTRFS.
  No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much 
  already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
 
 If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed about legal 
 background. 
 
 The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it.
 
 If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the code and can 
 relicense it under any license they like.
 
 Jörg

I don't think anyone is arguing that Oracle can relicense their own
copyrighted code as they see fit.

The real question is, WHY would they do it?  What would be the business
motivation here?  Chris Mason would most likely leave Oracle, Red Hat
would hire him and fork the last GPL'd version of btrfs and Oracle
would have relegated itself to a non-player in the Linux filesystem
space... 

So, yes, they can do it if they want, I just think they're not THAT
stupid. :)

Ray
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:08:52AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
  C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
  
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed 
BTRFS.
   No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much 
   already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
  
  If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed about legal 
  background. 
  
  The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it.
  
  If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the code and can 
  relicense it under any license they like.
  
  Jörg
 
 I don't think anyone is arguing that Oracle can relicense their own
 copyrighted code as they see fit.

s/can/can't/
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org

 Joerg Schilling wrote:

 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:



 I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
 BTRFS.


 No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
 already to be available under anything, but GPLv2



 If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed about legal
 background.
 The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it.

 If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the code and can
 relicense it under any license they like.


 Why don't all you license trolls go crawl under a rock.. Are you so dense
 to believe

 1) Only Oracle devs have by now contributed to btrfs?
 2) That it's so tightly intermingled with the linux kernel code you can't
 separate the two of them.

 Just STFU already and go check commit logs and source if you don't
 believe..

 ZFS-discuss != BTRFS+Oracle-license troll-ml


Before making yourself look like a fool, I suggest you look at the BTRFS
commits.  Can you find a commit submitted by anyone BUT Oracle employees?
 I've yet to see any significant contribution from anyone outside the walls
of Oracle to the project.

--Tim
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead


On Mon, August 16, 2010 11:01, Joerg Schilling wrote:
 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:

  As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
 
  No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as
 they
  own the code.

 Ray's point is, how long would BTRFS remain in the Linux kernel in that
 case?

 Such a license change can happen at any time. The Linux folks have no
 grant
 that it would not happen.

And they have every right to stop including BTRFS in the kernel whenever
they wish.

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.comwrote:

 On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
  C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
 
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
 dual-licensed
BTRFS.
   No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
   already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
 
  If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed about legal
  background.
 
  The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it.
 
  If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the code and
 can
  relicense it under any license they like.
 
  Jörg

 I don't think anyone is arguing that Oracle can relicense their own
 copyrighted code as they see fit.

 The real question is, WHY would they do it?  What would be the business
 motivation here?  Chris Mason would most likely leave Oracle, Red Hat
 would hire him and fork the last GPL'd version of btrfs and Oracle
 would have relegated itself to a non-player in the Linux filesystem
 space...

 So, yes, they can do it if they want, I just think they're not THAT
 stupid. :)



Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that states
if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he was a part of
for five years.

The business motivation would be to set the competition back a decade.


--Tim
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Cindy,

UID/GID on both are the same.
Do not want to use aumounter at this point. 
Need to get it working first. Besides mounting the filesystem
Is not the issue.

The issue is writing to it.

Phillip


-Original Message-
From: Cindy Swearingen [mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:59 PM
To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Hi Phillip,

What's the error message?

How did you share the ZFS file system?

# zfs create tank/cindys
# zfs sharenfs=on tank/cindys
# share
-   /tank/cindys   rw   
# cp /usr/dict/words /tank/cindys/file.1
# cd /tank/cindys
# chmod 666 file.1
# ls -l file.1
-rw-rw-rw-   1 root root  206663 Aug 13 13:03 file.1


Some things to check:

- Are the UID/GID and hostnames resolving between the NFS server
and the NFS client?
- File permissions
- Mount point permissions

Can you access the file system on the client by using the automounter?

# pwd
/net/t2k-brm-03/tank/cindys
# echo abc  file.1
#

Thanks,

Cindy

On 08/13/10 13:19, Phillip Bruce wrote:
 I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
 The client is Solaris 9 U7. 
 
 I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
 showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
 the dfstab file has option rw set.
 
 So what gives?
 
 Phillip

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Cindy,

I appreciate your help.
Understand the NFS server is Solaris 10
The Client is Solaris 9

Here what I see on the client system:
# mount -o rw server1:/nfs /nfs/backup 
# cd /nfs/backup 
# touch me
touch: me cannot create

# showmount -e server1
export list for server1:
/nfs (everyone)

# nfsstat -m 

/nfs/backup from server1:/nfs
 Flags: 
vers=3,proto=tcp,sec=sys,hard,nointr,noac,link,symlink,acl,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,retrans=5,timeo=600
 Attr cache:acregmin=3,acregmax=60,acdirmin=30,acdirmax=60

Server1 is setup as followed:

# zfs get all nfs
NAME  PROPERTY VALUE  SOURCE
nfs   type filesystem -
nfs   creation Mon Aug  9 18:00 2010  -
nfs   used 125K   -
nfs   available1.55T  -
nfs   referenced   20K-
nfs   compressratio1.00x  -
nfs   mounted  yes-
nfs   quotanone   default
nfs   reservation  none   default
nfs   recordsize   128K   default
nfs   mountpoint   /nfs   default
nfs   sharenfs rw local
nfs   checksum on default
nfs   compression  offdefault
nfs   atimeon default
nfs   devices  on default
nfs   exec on default
nfs   setuid   on default
nfs   readonly offdefault
nfs   zonedoffdefault
nfs   snapdir  hidden default
nfs   aclmode  groupmask  default
nfs   aclinherit   restricted default
nfs   canmount on default
nfs   shareiscsi   offdefault
nfs   xattron default
nfs   copies   1  default
nfs   version  3  -
nfs   utf8only off-
nfs   normalizationnone   -
nfs   casesensitivity  sensitive  -
nfs   vscanoffdefault
nfs   nbmand   offdefault
nfs   sharesmb offdefault
nfs   refquota none   default
nfs   refreservation   none   default

# exportfs
-   /nfs   rw   

Again I ask what gives, UID and GUID are same on both servers.
I would appreciate if someone can confirm if Solaris 9 needs a patch?
I can't see why but since this is a ZFS filesystem being NFS over. Who knows!!!


Phillip









-Original Message-
From: Cindy Swearingen [mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:59 PM
To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Hi Phillip,

What's the error message?

How did you share the ZFS file system?

# zfs create tank/cindys
# zfs sharenfs=on tank/cindys
# share
-   /tank/cindys   rw   
# cp /usr/dict/words /tank/cindys/file.1
# cd /tank/cindys
# chmod 666 file.1
# ls -l file.1
-rw-rw-rw-   1 root root  206663 Aug 13 13:03 file.1


Some things to check:

- Are the UID/GID and hostnames resolving between the NFS server
and the NFS client?
- File permissions
- Mount point permissions

Can you access the file system on the client by using the automounter?

# pwd
/net/t2k-brm-03/tank/cindys
# echo abc  file.1
#

Thanks,

Cindy

On 08/13/10 13:19, Phillip Bruce wrote:
 I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
 The client is Solaris 9 U7. 
 
 I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
 showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
 the dfstab file has option rw set.
 
 So what gives?
 
 Phillip

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Cindy,

I forgot to post the server NFS config.

# zpool status
  pool: nfs
 state: ONLINE
 scrub: none requested
config:

NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
nfs  ONLINE   0 0 0
  c4t60060E8004A4A000A4A000FDd0  ONLINE   0 0 0
  c4t60060E8004A4A000A4A000FEd0  ONLINE   0 0 0
  c4t60060E8004A4A000A4A000FFd0  ONLINE   0 0 0

errors: No known data errors

# zfs list
NAME   USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
nfs125K  1.55T20K  /nfs
#


-Original Message-
From: Cindy Swearingen [mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:59 PM
To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Hi Phillip,

What's the error message?

How did you share the ZFS file system?

# zfs create tank/cindys
# zfs sharenfs=on tank/cindys
# share
-   /tank/cindys   rw   
# cp /usr/dict/words /tank/cindys/file.1
# cd /tank/cindys
# chmod 666 file.1
# ls -l file.1
-rw-rw-rw-   1 root root  206663 Aug 13 13:03 file.1


Some things to check:

- Are the UID/GID and hostnames resolving between the NFS server
and the NFS client?
- File permissions
- Mount point permissions

Can you access the file system on the client by using the automounter?

# pwd
/net/t2k-brm-03/tank/cindys
# echo abc  file.1
#

Thanks,

Cindy

On 08/13/10 13:19, Phillip Bruce wrote:
 I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
 The client is Solaris 9 U7. 
 
 I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
 showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
 the dfstab file has option rw set.
 
 So what gives?
 
 Phillip

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Cindy,

I will agree with NFS statement. 
No this is not a tmp or lofs mount. I am very clear on what it is.

This is a ZFS filesystem being exported.

This was mounted as root and needs to be. Standard permission applied.
Tested as root. No other permission needs to be checked. But since you
Brought it up. I'll look and see. 

Phillip

-Original Message-
From: Cindy Swearingen [mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:17 PM
To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

NFS doesn't care if the access is for a ZFS file system
on systems running Solaris 9 or Solaris 10.

This isn't a tmp or lofs mount point, is it?

If not, I would check the permissions on the client's
/nfs/backup directory.

Thanks,

Cindy

On 08/13/10 14:33, Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) wrote:
 Cindy,
 
 I appreciate your help.
 Understand the NFS server is Solaris 10
 The Client is Solaris 9
 
 Here what I see on the client system:
 # mount -o rw server1:/nfs /nfs/backup 
 # cd /nfs/backup 
 # touch me
 touch: me cannot create
 
 # showmount -e server1
 export list for server1:
 /nfs (everyone)
 
 # nfsstat -m 
 
 /nfs/backup from server1:/nfs
  Flags: 
 vers=3,proto=tcp,sec=sys,hard,nointr,noac,link,symlink,acl,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,retrans=5,timeo=600
  Attr cache:acregmin=3,acregmax=60,acdirmin=30,acdirmax=60
 
 Server1 is setup as followed:
 
 # zfs get all nfs
 NAME  PROPERTY VALUE  SOURCE
 nfs   type filesystem -
 nfs   creation Mon Aug  9 18:00 2010  -
 nfs   used 125K   -
 nfs   available1.55T  -
 nfs   referenced   20K-
 nfs   compressratio1.00x  -
 nfs   mounted  yes-
 nfs   quotanone   default
 nfs   reservation  none   default
 nfs   recordsize   128K   default
 nfs   mountpoint   /nfs   default
 nfs   sharenfs rw local
 nfs   checksum on default
 nfs   compression  offdefault
 nfs   atimeon default
 nfs   devices  on default
 nfs   exec on default
 nfs   setuid   on default
 nfs   readonly offdefault
 nfs   zonedoffdefault
 nfs   snapdir  hidden default
 nfs   aclmode  groupmask  default
 nfs   aclinherit   restricted default
 nfs   canmount on default
 nfs   shareiscsi   offdefault
 nfs   xattron default
 nfs   copies   1  default
 nfs   version  3  -
 nfs   utf8only off-
 nfs   normalizationnone   -
 nfs   casesensitivity  sensitive  -
 nfs   vscanoffdefault
 nfs   nbmand   offdefault
 nfs   sharesmb offdefault
 nfs   refquota none   default
 nfs   refreservation   none   default
 
 # exportfs
 -   /nfs   rw   
 
 Again I ask what gives, UID and GUID are same on both servers.
 I would appreciate if someone can confirm if Solaris 9 needs a patch?
 I can't see why but since this is a ZFS filesystem being NFS over. Who 
 knows!!!
 
 
 Phillip
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Cindy Swearingen [mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com] 
 Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:59 PM
 To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
 Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
 Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS
 
 Hi Phillip,
 
 What's the error message?
 
 How did you share the ZFS file system?
 
 # zfs create tank/cindys
 # zfs sharenfs=on tank/cindys
 # share
 -   /tank/cindys   rw   
 # cp /usr/dict/words /tank/cindys/file.1
 # cd /tank/cindys
 # chmod 666 file.1
 # ls -l file.1
 -rw-rw-rw-   1 root root  206663 Aug 13 13:03 file.1
 
 
 Some things to check:
 
 - Are the UID/GID and hostnames resolving between the NFS server
 and the NFS client?
 - File permissions
 - Mount point permissions
 
 Can you access the file system on the client by using the automounter?
 
 # pwd
 /net/t2k-brm-03/tank/cindys
 # echo abc  file.1
 #
 
 Thanks,
 
 Cindy
 
 On 08/13/10 13:19, Phillip Bruce wrote:
 I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
 The client is Solaris 9 U7. 

 I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
 showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
 the dfstab file has option rw set.

 So what gives?

 Phillip

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

2010-08-16 Thread Peter Karlsson


Hi Phillip,

What's the permissions on the directory where you try to write to, and 
what user are you using on the client system, it's most likely a UID 
mapping issue between the client and the server.


/peter

On 8/14/10 3:19 , Phillip Bruce wrote:

I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
The client is Solaris 9 U7.

I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
the dfstab file has option rw set.

So what gives?

Phillip

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

2010-08-16 Thread Peter Karlsson




On 8/14/10 11:49 , Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) wrote:

Peter,

what would you expect for root?
That is the user I am at.


root is default mapped to annon, if you don't specifically export it 
with the option to allow root on one or more clients to be mapped to 
local root on the server.


zfs set sharenfs=rw,root=host zpool/fs/to/export

where host is a ':' separated list of hosts.

Alternatively, if you want root from any host to be mapped to root on 
the server (bad idea), you can do something like this


zfs set sharenfs=rw,anon=0 zpool/fs/to/export

to allow root access to all hosts.

/peter


Like I already stated it is NOT a UID or GUID issue.
Both systems are the same.


Try as a different user that have the same uid on both systems and have 
write access to the directory in qustion.




Phillip

From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:23 PM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Hi Phillip,

What's the permissions on the directory where you try to write to, and
what user are you using on the client system, it's most likely a UID
mapping issue between the client and the server.

/peter

On 8/14/10 3:19 , Phillip Bruce wrote:

I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
The client is Solaris 9 U7.

I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
the dfstab file has option rw set.

So what gives?

Phillip



___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Peter,

what would you expect for root?
That is the user I am at. 
Like I already stated it is NOT a UID or GUID issue.
Both systems are the same.

Phillip

From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:23 PM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Hi Phillip,

What's the permissions on the directory where you try to write to, and
what user are you using on the client system, it's most likely a UID
mapping issue between the client and the server.

/peter

On 8/14/10 3:19 , Phillip Bruce wrote:
 I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
 The client is Solaris 9 U7.

 I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
 showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
 the dfstab file has option rw set.

 So what gives?

 Phillip

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Peter,

Ah!!!  that my problem, thanks for the tip. i agree and did not explicidly 
export
to allow that host for rw. 

Phillip

From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:21 PM
To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

On 8/14/10 11:49 , Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) wrote:
 Peter,

 what would you expect for root?
 That is the user I am at.

root is default mapped to annon, if you don't specifically export it
with the option to allow root on one or more clients to be mapped to
local root on the server.

zfs set sharenfs=rw,root=host zpool/fs/to/export

where host is a ':' separated list of hosts.

Alternatively, if you want root from any host to be mapped to root on
the server (bad idea), you can do something like this

zfs set sharenfs=rw,anon=0 zpool/fs/to/export

to allow root access to all hosts.

/peter

 Like I already stated it is NOT a UID or GUID issue.
 Both systems are the same.

Try as a different user that have the same uid on both systems and have
write access to the directory in qustion.


 Phillip
 
 From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com]
 Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:23 PM
 To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
 Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

 Hi Phillip,

 What's the permissions on the directory where you try to write to, and
 what user are you using on the client system, it's most likely a UID
 mapping issue between the client and the server.

 /peter

 On 8/14/10 3:19 , Phillip Bruce wrote:
 I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
 The client is Solaris 9 U7.

 I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
 showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
 the dfstab file has option rw set.

 So what gives?

 Phillip


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

Peter,

Thanks for the suggestions, I'm getting closer to solving the problem.
it definitely works when using anon setting. I can read / write to the 
filesystem all day
long. But as you mentioned using anon is a bad idea and a security risk.
Something I get my hand slapped with keeping this in that configuration.

I tired setting directly as root but I keep getting permission denied.
I will try this as oracle user and see if I get same thing.

Doesn't make sense as I'm using right now a Linux (Centos) and getting the same 
thing.

Phillip

From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:21 PM
To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

On 8/14/10 11:49 , Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) wrote:
 Peter,

 what would you expect for root?
 That is the user I am at.

root is default mapped to annon, if you don't specifically export it
with the option to allow root on one or more clients to be mapped to
local root on the server.

zfs set sharenfs=rw,root=host zpool/fs/to/export

where host is a ':' separated list of hosts.

Alternatively, if you want root from any host to be mapped to root on
the server (bad idea), you can do something like this

zfs set sharenfs=rw,anon=0 zpool/fs/to/export

to allow root access to all hosts.

/peter

 Like I already stated it is NOT a UID or GUID issue.
 Both systems are the same.

Try as a different user that have the same uid on both systems and have
write access to the directory in qustion.


 Phillip
 
 From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com]
 Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:23 PM
 To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
 Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS

 Hi Phillip,

 What's the permissions on the directory where you try to write to, and
 what user are you using on the client system, it's most likely a UID
 mapping issue between the client and the server.

 /peter

 On 8/14/10 3:19 , Phillip Bruce wrote:
 I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem.
 The client is Solaris 9 U7.

 I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it.
 showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone.
 the dfstab file has option rw set.

 So what gives?

 Phillip


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Zpool import hangs, disk label issues

2010-08-16 Thread Peter VanBuren


Hi,

I am having trouble with a 8 disk raidz2 pool. Last week I noticed any 
commands that were accessing the pool's filesystems would hang (ls, df 
etc...). The logs showed some read errors for two of the drives. I had 
to power cycle the machine since I could not shut it down cleanly. After 
rebooting, the machine would just hang when reading the ZFS config. I 
was able to boot into maintenance mode using the 2009.06 live cd. 
Running zpool import showed the pool as degraded but that it can be 
imported:


 pool: ZP02
id: 16281565776335757619
 state: DEGRADED
status: The pool was last accessed by another system.
action: The pool can be imported despite missing or damaged devices. 
The

fault tolerance of the pool may be compromised if imported.
   see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-EY
config:

ZP02 DEGRADED
  raidz2 DEGRADED
c11t0d0  ONLINE
c11t1d0  ONLINE
c11t2d0  ONLINE
c11t3d0  UNAVAIL  corrupted data
c11t4d0  ONLINE
c11t5d0  ONLINE
c11t6d0  ONLINE
c11t7d0  UNAVAIL  corrupted data

(The pool was originally created in with SXDE 1/08).

I tried importing it with zpool import -f ZP02. Initally, there are 
some drive activity lights, but then it doesn't seem that anything is 
happening. I let it sit for one week, but nothing ever completed.
Running zdb -l on the drives shows that the labels are intact for t0, 
t1, t2, t5 and t6. t3, t4 and t7 show some failed to read label 
errors.


Is there anything I can try to get this pool imported? Is the label 
problem with c11t4 causing the issue (leaving me with three problem 
disks)? I have ordred more memory for the machine in case it is needed 
for the import to complete.


Thanks.

Peter.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Joerg Moellenkamp

 The problem is: The first time the a software release is considered 
stable, it takes significant time for the uptake and the moment it's 
really stable. ZFS was introduced almost 5 years ago to the public and 
just now it gets mayor uptake in the field. I still don't get it, why 
brtfs should be exception of the rule, that everything around storage is 
under most conservative consideration by people (even for people just 
using at home: Telling your wife that you just lost your wedding photos 
by testing that new filesystem will give you an escalation meeting near 
to hell and the contract penalties may force you to sleep in the living 
room for years). The fast uptake of ext1-4 was just owed to the fact, 
that the changes was just evolutionary.


On 14.08.2010 23:26, Andrej Podzimek wrote:

From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Andrej Podzimek

Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a
serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using


I will much sooner pay for sol11 instead of use btrfs.  Stability  
speed  maturity greatly outweigh a few hundred dollars a year, if 
you run your business on it.


Well, a typical conversation about speed and stability usually boils 
down to this:


A: I've heard that XYZ is unstable and slow.
B: Are you sure? Have you tested XYZ? What are your benchmark results? 
Have you had any issues?
A: No. I *have* *not* *tested* XYZ. I think XYZ is so unstable and 
slow that it's not worth testing.


It is true that the userspace utilities for Btrfs are immature. But 
nobody says Btrfs is ready for business deployments *right* *now*. I 
merely said it could become a serious alternative to ZFS in one year's 
time.


As far as stability is concerned, I haven't had any issues so far. 
Neither with ZFS, nor with Btrfs.


As far as performance is concerned, some people probably own a crystal 
ball. This explains their ability to guess whether Btrfs will 
outperform ZFS or not, once the first stable release of Btrfs is 
out. Unfortunately, I'm not a prophet. ;-) So I'll have to make a 
decision based on benchmarks and thorough testing on some of my 
machines, as soon as the first stable release of Btrfs is out.


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

2010-08-16 Thread Joerg Moellenkamp




Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial 
Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent.

Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the 
Solaris code quality.

I think code quality has nothing to do with open-sourcing or not ... it has 
something to do with development processes. And by the way: Wasn't there a 
comment of Linus Torvals recently that people shound move their low-quality 
code into the codebase ??? ;)

--
ORACLE
Joerg Moellenkamp | Sales Consultant
Phone: +49 40 251523-460 | Mobile: +49 172 8318433
Oracle Hardware Presales - Nord

ORACLE Deutschland B.V.  Co. KG | Nagelsweg 55 | 20097 Hamburg

ORACLE Deutschland B.V.  Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603

Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Rijnzathe 6, 3454PV De Meern, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven

Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the 
environment


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:15:12AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
 Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that
 states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he
 was a part of for five years.
 
 The business motivation would be to set the competition back a decade.

Could be, though I still feel like there are plenty of great filesystem
people in the Linux kernel community who could pick things up just fine
.. 

Anyways, way off topic now -- we've both made our points I think. :)

Ray
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:

  The real question is, WHY would they do it?  What would be the business
  motivation here?  Chris Mason would most likely leave Oracle, Red Hat
  would hire him and fork the last GPL'd version of btrfs and Oracle
  would have relegated itself to a non-player in the Linux filesystem
  space...
 
  So, yes, they can do it if they want, I just think they're not THAT
  stupid. :)
 
 
 
 Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that states
 if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he was a part of
 for five years.

Well, they would need to pay him for this time but who cares ;-)

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread C. Bergström


Tim Cook wrote:



2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org 
mailto:codest...@osunix.org


Joerg Schilling wrote:

C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
mailto:codest...@osunix.org wrote:

 


I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already
has dual-licensed BTRFS.
 


No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel
too much already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
   



If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed
about legal background.
The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it.

If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the
code and can relicense it under any license they like.
 


Why don't all you license trolls go crawl under a rock.. Are you
so dense to believe

1) Only Oracle devs have by now contributed to btrfs?
2) That it's so tightly intermingled with the linux kernel code
you can't separate the two of them.

Just STFU already and go check commit logs and source if you don't
believe..

ZFS-discuss != BTRFS+Oracle-license troll-ml


Before making yourself look like a fool, I suggest you look at the 
BTRFS commits.  Can you find a commit submitted by anyone BUT Oracle 
employees?  I've yet to see any significant contribution from anyone 
outside the walls of Oracle to the project.

I think I've probably dug into the issue a bit deeper than you..

http://www.codestrom.com/wandering/2009/03/zfs-vs-btrfs-comparison.html

Oh. .and if you don't believe me ask Josef Bacik from RH..

I'm not directing this at anyone specifically..  Pretty please..  STFU 
and go back to trolling somewhere else...



___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

2010-08-16 Thread Scott Meilicke

I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta 
before Oracle's cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my decision. 

Us too. :)
-- 
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] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org

 Tim Cook wrote:



 2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org mailto:
 codest...@osunix.org


Joerg Schilling wrote:

C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
mailto:codest...@osunix.org wrote:


I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already
has dual-licensed BTRFS.

No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel
too much already to be available under anything, but GPLv2


If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed
about legal background.
The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it.

If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the
code and can relicense it under any license they like.

Why don't all you license trolls go crawl under a rock.. Are you
so dense to believe

1) Only Oracle devs have by now contributed to btrfs?
2) That it's so tightly intermingled with the linux kernel code
you can't separate the two of them.

Just STFU already and go check commit logs and source if you don't
believe..

ZFS-discuss != BTRFS+Oracle-license troll-ml


 Before making yourself look like a fool, I suggest you look at the BTRFS
 commits.  Can you find a commit submitted by anyone BUT Oracle employees?
  I've yet to see any significant contribution from anyone outside the walls
 of Oracle to the project.

 I think I've probably dug into the issue a bit deeper than you..

 http://www.codestrom.com/wandering/2009/03/zfs-vs-btrfs-comparison.html

 Oh. .and if you don't believe me ask Josef Bacik from RH..

 I'm not directing this at anyone specifically..  Pretty please..  STFU and
 go back to trolling somewhere else...


Nobody here appears to be trolling beyond you.  The rest of us were having a
civilized conversation prior to you feeling the need to start throwing out
insults.  Oracle can pull the plug at any time they choose.  *ONE* developer
from Redhat does not change the fact that Oracle owns the rights to the
majority of the code, and can relicense it, or discontinue code updates, as
they see fit.

Grow up.


--Tim
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Eric D. Mudama


On Mon, Aug 16 at  8:52, Ray Van Dolson wrote:

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:

  I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
  dual-licensed BTRFS.

 Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
 kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it...

 As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.

No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
own the code.



Maybe there's not legally, but practically there is.  If they're not
GPL compliant, why would Linus or his lieutenants continue to allow the
code to remain part of the Linux kernel?


The snapshot of btrfs development would obviously remain GPL, that
can't be taken away from the kernel and anyone is free to continue
GPL development of that work.

However, Oracle can freely close up all future development and change
future licensing.  It obviously won't affect the previous
kernel-included snapshot, but depending on critical mass, may or may
not result in the bitrot of btrfs in linux.


And what purpose would btrfs serve Oracle outside of the Linux kernel?


Maybe allowing SANs built upon btrfs to be natively used within
Solaris/Oracle at some point in the future?  Adding btrfs-zfs
conversion utilities that do things like maintain snapshots, data set
properties, etc?

--
Eric D. Mudama
edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Eric D. Mudama


On Mon, Aug 16 at 11:15, Tim Cook wrote:

  Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that states
  if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he was a part
  of for five years.


IANAL, but as my discussions with employment lawyers in my state have
explained to me, a non-compete cannot legally prevent you from earning
a living.  If your one skill is in writing filesystems, you cannot be
prevented from doing so by a noncompete.

However, please get your own legal advice, as it varies significantly
state-to-state.

--
Eric D. Mudama
edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Bob Friesenhahn


On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Peter Jeremy wrote:


Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes).  They can't
retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
can put a different (non-OSS) license on any new code.


I don't have much knowledge of the history of btrfs, but unless Oracle 
is the sole copyright holder for btrfs (seems unlikely), they will 
have to distribute any source updates for binaries they distribute.


Depending on how CDDL is written, and depending on if all contributors 
signed a contract assigning copyrights to Sun, Oracle may be forced to 
distribute source updates to zfs if it has been 'tainted' by 
contributions by outside developers.


Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead


On Sun, August 15, 2010 09:19, David Magda wrote:
 On Aug 14, 2010, at 14:54, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

 From:  Russ Price


 For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of
 being prohibitively expensive.

 I hear that a lot, and I don't get it.  $400/yr does move it out of
 peoples'
 basements generally, and keeps sol10 out of enormous clustering
 facilities
 that don't have special purposes or free alternatives.  But I
 wouldn't call
 it prohibitively expensive, for a whole lot of purposes.

 But that US$ 400 was only if you wanted support. For the last little
 while you could run Solaris 10 legally without a support contract
 without issues.

Looks like there are prices for service for things that could
legitimately be called RedHat Enterprise Linux from $80/year up into at
least the mid thousands; this may account for the range of impressions
people have.

The 24/7 Premium subscription for a two-socket server is $1299/year.  The
business-hours plan is $799.

https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html

Your point that free has been important is very true.  I'm not sure that
what Oracle says they're doing with Solaris 11 Express won't cover that at
least for business customers, though.  (I do think that they'll lose out
on the extensive testing we've been providing.)

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:

 insults.  Oracle can pull the plug at any time they choose.  *ONE* developer
 from Redhat does not change the fact that Oracle owns the rights to the
 majority of the code, and can relicense it, or discontinue code updates, as
 they see fit.

It would be most unlikely that Oracle did not make a contributor agreement with
people they give the possibility to contribute.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] JET and ZFS ?

2010-08-16 Thread Lori Alt



I don't know much about JET, but a jumpstart install of a system with a 
zfs root will do the necessary disk formatting.   The profile keywords 
that describe the disk layout work more or less the same for zfs as they 
do for ufs, subject to the ways that zfs is different from ufs (you 
don't need a separate swap/dump slice, for example).  any will format 
the drive for you, just like for ufs.


Lori

On 08/16/10 09:21 AM, Mark A. Hodges wrote:
With JET, you can specify a ZFS install by selecting the disk slice to 
install the rpool onto (or any to let the install choose a disk). 
But this appears to assume that the disk is already formatted. Or does 
it? It looks like if you specify any that it may or may not format 
the drive for you.


With UFS-based installs, jumpstart will format the disk per the 
jumpstart profile. of course. It's not clear how to dive this with JET.




Any experiences?



Thanks,


mark



___
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] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Andrej Podzimek

Well, a typical conversation about speed and stability usually boils down
to this:

A: I've heard that XYZ is unstable and slow.
B: Are you sure? Have you tested XYZ? What are your benchmark results?
Have you had any issues?
A: No. I *have* *not* *tested* XYZ. I think XYZ is so unstable and slow
that it's not worth testing.

Yes indeed!

I can't afford to test everything carefully. Like most people, I read
published reports and listen to conversations places like this, and form
an impression of what performs how.

Then I do some testing to verify that something I'm seriously considering
produces satisfactory performance. The key there is satisfactory; I'm
not looking for the best, I'm looking for something that fits in and is
satisfactory.

The more unusual my requirements, and the better defined, the less I can
gain from studying outside test reports.

My only point was: There is no published report saying that stability or *performance* of
Btrfs will be worse (or better) than that of ZFS. This is because nobody can guess how
Btrfs will perform once it's finished. (In fact nobody even knows *when* it is going to
be finished. My guess was that it might not be considered experimental in one
year's time, but that's just a shot in the dark.)

For that reason, spreading myths about stability performance maturity
serves no purpose. (And this is what caused my (over)reaction.)

I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read
them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic
yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples:

(1) http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=zfs_ext4_btrfsnum=1
(2) http://www.dhtusa.com/media/IOPerf_CMG09DHT.pdf

Based on (1), one could say that Btrfs outperforms ZFS with ease and confidence.
Unfinished Btrfs versus a port of ZFS to FreeBSD -- that sounds fair, doesn't it? Well,
in fact such a comparison is neither fair nor meaningful. Furthermore,
benchmarks from Phoronix don't seem to have a good reputation... (See the P. S. for
details.)

In (2), ZFS performs (much) better than (what will once be) Btrfs. However, the
results in (2) are related to a 2.6.30 kernel, which is as *old* as June
2009... Nobody knows how the tested file systems would perform today.

Yes, Btrfs is still somewhat immature. Yes, Btrfs is not ready for serious
deployments (right now, in August 2010). So it's way to soon to compare the
stability and performance of Btrfs and ZFS.

Disclaimer: I use Reiser4, Ext4, ZFS, Btrfs and Ext3 (in this order of
frequency) and I'm not an advocate of any of them.

Andrej

P. S. As far as Phoronix is concerned... Well, I remember how they once used a malfunctioning and crippled
Reiser4 implementation (hacked by the people around the ZEN patchset so that it caused data corruption (!)
and kernel crashes) and compared it to other file systems. (That foolish Reiser4
benchmark can be found here:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=reiser4_benchmarksnum=1)

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Andrej Podzimek and...@podzimek.org wrote:

 P. S. As far as Phoronix is concerned... Well, I remember how they once used 
 a malfunctioning and crippled Reiser4 implementation (hacked by the people 
 around the ZEN patchset so that it caused data corruption (!) and kernel 
 crashes) and compared it to other file systems. (That foolish Reiser4 
 benchmark can be found here: 
 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=reiser4_benchmarksnum=1)

If you like to compare Solaris with Linux, it is hard to get comparable 
constraints in order to comparable results.

Linux has different goals for data security at certain check points.

I know of ext* performance checks where people did run gtar to unpack a linux 
kernel archive and these people did nothing but metering the wall clock time 
for gtar.

I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start to write 
to the disk when gtar finished.

Then I checked what Solaris did on UFS with logging, Solaris did start 
immediately with disk transfers, so could it be faster than Linux?

Well I switched to star that by default calls fsync() at the end of extracting 
for every single file. Solaris was not slower than Linux with the speudo gtar 
test, but when star finished the file system was in a consistent state. GOning 
back to Linux but using star with fsync resulted in a comparable test but Linux 
now was 4x slower than Solaris.

It seems that Linux is not designed to be fast but to create the impression of
being fast.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead


On Mon, August 16, 2010 15:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:

 I know of ext* performance checks where people did run gtar to unpack a
 linux
 kernel archive and these people did nothing but metering the wall clock
 time
 for gtar.

 I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start to
 write
 to the disk when gtar finished.

As a test of ext? performance, that does seem to be lacking something!

I guess it's a consequence of the low sound levels of modern disk drives;
you go back enough years, that error couldn't have passed unnoticed :-) .

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:

  I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start to
  write
  to the disk when gtar finished.

 As a test of ext? performance, that does seem to be lacking something!

 I guess it's a consequence of the low sound levels of modern disk drives;
 you go back enough years, that error couldn't have passed unnoticed :-) .

Well, the HDD LED is not a matter of sound


Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)  
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Miles Nordin

 pj == Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com writes:
 gd == Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com writes:
 cb == C Bergström codest...@osunix.org writes:
 fc == Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net writes:
 tc == Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:

pj Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to
pj see why Oracle would continue to invest in both.

So far I think the tricky parts of filesystems have been the work of 1
- 3 people.  It's difficult to see why the kind of developer who's
capable of advancing those filesystems would continue to work in a
negative environment like this one, but maybe they will.  Such a
developer can get money from several places, and I've never heard of
something else this crew brings to the table than money.  That's a
bleak outlook on their ability to actually facilitate relevant
``investment,'' but who knows!

gd Oracle *will* spend more on Solaris than Sun did.  I believe
gd that.

hahaha, yup.  At least I believe their saying they will try to do it.

fc all public companies are very, very greedy.

yeah, it's not helpful to anthropomorphize them, nor tell human
interest 1930's newsreel-hero stories about their supposedly genius
and/or evil leaders, nor imagine yourself into their point of view
like they are your favorite soccer team.

What's needed is clear focus on the rules of collaboration, and how
these rules determine the future of your own greedy schemes.

cb It was a community of system administrators and nearly no
cb developers.

sysadmins need to care about licenses because their investment cycle
in a platform is, apparently, long compared to the stability of a
publicly-traded company.

tc *ONE* developer from Redhat does not change the fact that
tc Oracle owns the rights to the majority of the code,

one developer making the tinyest change to line breaks and then
asserting his copyright does change everything, if it gets committed
to trunk and used as the basis for further work that can't be rolled
back.

gd we are in the process of some enhancements to this
gd code which will make it into Illumos, but probably not into
gd Oracle Solaris unless they pull from Illumos. :-)

yeah, well, add your copyright to it, and thus see that it doesn't
make it into Solaris 11.  Without hg, there's no longer any incentive
to sign over your copyright to them in exchange for getting your
changes committed, so not to keep it for yourself would be negligent
and silly.  Good or bad, it's just reality.

FWIW, the SFLC usually suggests you get copyright assignments from
every member to a single trusted organization so the license can be
changed someday when a change might seem obviously wise.  For example,
Sun was careful to get assignments from all contributors, which at one
time had good hypotheticals as well as the current bad reality: they
could have released their tree under Linux-compatible GPL some day if
convinced.  ISTR some cheap talk about this right after most of Java
was released as GPL.  If Sun had included some Joerg Schilling-owned
pieces in there, his one or two files would become a poison pill
making license change impossible.

However when there is no such trusted organization around, I think
copyrights held by multiple orgs like Linux has are more sustainable.
Nexenta clearly isn't a ``trusted organization,'' but having a source
tree copyrighted by both Nexenta and Oracle could make the terms more
stable than they'd be for a tree copyrighted by either alone.

I don't think the Announcement means much for ZFS, though: it means
releases will come only every year or two, which is about the maximum
pace FreeBSD can keep up with so it will actually bring Solaris and
FreeBSD closer in ZFS feature-parity not further apart.

However, if you were using ZFS along with things like infiniband
iSER/SRP/NFS-RDMA, zones, 10gig nics with cpu-affinity-optimized TCP,
xen dom0, virtualbox, dtrace, or waiting/hoping for pNFS, or if you
foolishly became addicted to proprietary SunPro and Sun's debugger,
then you might be annoyed or even set back a few years by the
Announcement since FreeBSD has none of these things.

Post-Announcement, ZFS will no longer entice people to experiment with
these features, but those who listened to the last half-decade of
apologist's, ``let's wait patiently and quietly.  More code will be
liberated, even the C compiler.  Just give them time,'' those suckers
have now got problems.  I've got a heap of IB cards trying to convince
me to bury my head in the sand or keep ``hoping'' instead of reacting.
I wish I'd invested my time into an OS I could continue using under
consistent terms.


pgps28C1MIhcQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Miles Nordin

dd 2  * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle.  All rights reserved.
dd 3  *
dd 4  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
dd 5  * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
dd 6  * License v2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.

dd 
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git;a=blob;f=fs/btrfs/root-tree.c;h=2d958be761c84556b39c60afa3b0f3fd75d6;hb=HEAD

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git;a=blob;f=fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c;h=f488fac04d99ea45eea93607bbf17c021b5b2207;hb=HEAD

   1 /*
   2  * Copyright (C) 2008 Red Hat.  All rights reserved.
   3  *
   4  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
   5  * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
   6  * License v2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.

see, that's good, and is a realistic future scenario for ZFS, AFAICT:
there can be a branch that's safe to collaborate on, which cannot go
into Solaris 11 and cannot be taken proprietary by Nexenta, either.


pgprH3DS8ogDw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Edward Ned Harvey

 From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
 boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet
 
 However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they
 must
 release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL.

When a copyright holder releases something under GPL, it only means they've
granted you and the rest of the world permission to use it according to the
terms of GPL.

The copyright holder always retains permission for themselves to
redistribute in any form, under a different license if they want to.

If you (Microsoft) are a developer of a proprietary product, and you want to
link in some GPL library and keep it private and proprietary, you can
attempt negotiations with the copyright holder, to get that code released to
you for your purposes, under terms which are not GPL.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HTPC

2010-08-16 Thread Russ Price


On 08/16/2010 10:35 AM, Freddie Cash wrote:

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarcomikej...@yahoo.com  wrote:

What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost 
more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over $1,000 
dollars, for what.


Because they include a motherboard and processor.  :)  The high-end
RAID controllers include their own CPUs and RAM for doing all the RAID
stuff in hardware.

The low-end RAID controllers (if you can even really call them RAID
controllers) do all the RAID stuff in software via a driver installed
in the OS, running on the host computer's CPU.

And the ones in the middle have simple XOR engines for doing the
RAID.stuff in hardware.




And the irony is that the expensive hardware RAID controllers really aren't a 
good idea for ZFS. For a ZFS application, you're far better off to use a simple 
HBA in JBOD mode, and such HBAs can be had in the $100-$200 range.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Edward Ned Harvey

 From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
 
 Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we
 can see the copyright statements?  It may well be that Oracle assigned
 the copyright to some other party.

BTRFS is inside the linux kernel.  
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

There is no other copyright written in there (that I can find with grep) but
the GPL does say something to contributors, which could fuzz the line
between copyright owner for contributions added by somebody outside the FSF.
it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights
to work written entirely by you

So maybe the contributor retains some rights to reproduce their work in
other situations, under a different license.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010-08-16 Thread Garrett D'Amore



 
 see, that's good, and is a realistic future scenario for ZFS, AFAICT:
 there can be a branch that's safe to collaborate on, which cannot go
 into Solaris 11 and cannot be taken proprietary by Nexenta, either.

In fact, we are in the process of creating a non-profit foundation for
Illumos which can receive copyright assignment, and which will have a
board that will not be dominated by any one company, and a set of rules
which will guarantee that the code is not dependent on the good will or
good behavior of any company or even group of companies.

In fact, Nexenta is *strongly* in favor of this kind of organization, so
while the funding for it comes from Nexenta (mostly), Nexenta will not
have any controlling influence.

It takes time to set this stuff up, so please be patient.

- Garrett


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HTPC

2010-08-16 Thread Erik Trimble


 On 8/16/2010 3:57 PM, Russ Price wrote:

On 08/16/2010 10:35 AM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarcomikej...@yahoo.com  
wrote:
What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller 
cards cost more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some 
cards can cost over $1,000 dollars, for what.


Because they include a motherboard and processor.  :)  The high-end
RAID controllers include their own CPUs and RAM for doing all the RAID
stuff in hardware.

The low-end RAID controllers (if you can even really call them RAID
controllers) do all the RAID stuff in software via a driver installed
in the OS, running on the host computer's CPU.

And the ones in the middle have simple XOR engines for doing the
RAID.stuff in hardware.




And the irony is that the expensive hardware RAID controllers really 
aren't a good idea for ZFS. For a ZFS application, you're far better 
off to use a simple HBA in JBOD mode, and such HBAs can be had in the 
$100-$200 range.





Yep, though, honestly, the best thing for ZFS would be some sort of 
enclosure that has a redundant controller connection that does 
*no*RAID or other device manipulation at all, but DOES have a large 
NVRAM cache.  I get this currently by running all my array enclosures 
either in JBOD mode, or, more likely, as single-disk RAID0 volumes.  But 
I'm overpaying for all that nice RAID controller hardware I'm not using, 
so it would be nice to just see someone make such an enclosure.  Call it 
a caching JBOD.


:-)


--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead