Re: [zfs-discuss] (Zil on multiple usb keys) Mirroring the pool
Tiernan, Depending on how you have created your current pool, you *may* be able to add the mirroring without rebuilding it. Each disk in the stripe can have a second disk of equal size attached to it to form a mirrored component, or vdev. So if your pool has 2 500GB drives, attach another 500GB drive to each, forming a mirror of each stripe half. # zpool status pool: mypool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM mypool ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t50d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t50d2 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool attach mypool c0t50d1 c0t50d3 # zpool attach mypool c0t50d2 c0t50d4 # zpool status pool: mypool state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Sat Jul 16 07:38:07 2011 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM mypool ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t50d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t50d3 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t50d2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t50d4 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # Both single vdevs (c0t50d1 and c0t50d2) are now mirrored. If you don't have a second disk appropriately sized to match the current pool members, you can create one or two pools with your two 500GB and two 300GB disks,, depending on your needs. Either: # zpool create pool1 mirror 500GB-1 500GB-2 mirror 300GB-1 300GB-2 to make one ~800GB pool. Or # zpool create pool1 mirror 500GB-1 500GB-2 # zpool create pool2 mirror 300GB-1 300GB-2 to make two pools, one ~500GB and one ~300GB. As long as the mirrored pairs match they do not have to be all the same in the pool. Craig Tiernan OToole wrote: Thanks for the info. need to rebuild my machine and ZFS pool kind of new to this and realized i built it as a stripe, not a mirror... also, want to add extra disks... As a follow up question: I have 2 500Gb internal drives and 2 300Gb USB drives. If i where to create a 2 pools, a 300Gb and a 500Gb in each, and then mirror over them, would that work? is it even posible? or what would you recomend for that setup? Thanks. --Tiernan On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tiernan OToole This might be a stupid question, but here goes... Would adding, say, 4 4 or 8gb usb keys as a zil make enough of a difference for writes on an iscsi shared vol? I am finding reads are not too bad (40is mb/s over gige on 2 500gb drives stripped) but writes top out at about 10 and drop a lot lower... If I where to add a couple usb keys for zil, would it make a difference? Unfortunately, usb keys, even the fastest ones, are slower than physical hard drives. I even went out of my way to buy a super expensive super fast USB3 16G fob... And it's still slower than a super-cheap USB2 sata hard drive. There is a way you can evaluate the effect of adding a fast slog device without buying one. (It would have to be a fast device, certainly no USB fobs.) Just temporarily disable your ZIL. That's the fastest you can possibly go. If it makes a big difference, then getting a fast slog device will help you approach that theoretical limit. If it doesn't make a huge difference, then adding slog will not do you any good. To disable ZIL, if your pool is sufficiently recent, use the zfs set sync= command. It takes effect immediately. If you have an older system, you'll have to use a different command, and you'll probably have to remount your filesystem in order for the change to take effect. -- Tiernan O'Toole blog.lotas-smartman.net www.tiernanotoolephotography.com www.the-hairy-one.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Oracle/Sun Certified System Administrator : Oracle/Sun Certified Network Administrator : Oracle/Sun Certified Security Administrator : Symantec/Veritas Certified Instructor : RedHat Certified Systems Administrator 8950 Cal Center Drive Bldg 1, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95826 [e] craig.c...@exitcertified.com [p] 916.669.3970 [f] 916.669.3977 +-+ ExitCertified :: Excellence in IT Certified Education Certified training with Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Apple, Symantec, IBM, Red Hat, MySQL, Hitachi Storage, SpringSource and VMWare. 1.800.803.EXIT (3948) | www.ExitCertified.com
Re: [zfs-discuss] Question: adding a single drive to a mirrored zpool
Alex, alex stun wrote: Hello, I have a zpool consisting of several mirrored vdevs. I was in the middle of adding another mirrored vdev today, but found out one of the new drives is bad. I will be receiving the replacement drive in a few days. In the mean time, I need the additional storage on my zpool. Is the command to add a single drive to a mirrored zpool: zpool add -f tank drive1? Does the -f command cause any issues? I realize that there will be no redundancy on that drive for a few days, and I can live with that as long as the rest of my zpool remains intact. Thanks -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss This is exactly what you'll need to do. Without the -f zpool will stop and warn you that you have a mismatch in reliability. So, to get the space: zpool add -f poolname single-disk Then later, zpool attach poolname newdisk single-disk HTH Craig -- Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Oracle/Sun Certified System Administrator : Oracle/Sun Certified Network Administrator : Oracle/Sun Certified Security Administrator : Symantec/Veritas Certified Instructor : RedHat Certified Systems Administrator +-+ ExitCertified :: Excellence in IT Certified Education Certified training with Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Apple, Symantec, IBM, Red Hat, MySQL, Hitachi Storage, SpringSource and VMWare. 1.800.803.EXIT (3948) | www.ExitCertified.com +-+ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Server with 4 drives, how to configure ZFS?
Paul Kraus wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Nomen Nescio nob...@dizum.com wrote: Hello Bob! Thanks for the reply. I was thinking about going with a 3 way mirror and a hot spare. But I don't think I can upgrade to larger drives unless I do it all at once, is that correct? Why keep one out as a Hot Spare ? If you have another zpool and the Hot Spare will be shared, that makes sense. If the drive is powered on and spinning, I don't see any downside to making it a 4-way mirror instead of 3-way + HS. -- Also, to add larger disks to a mirrored pool, you can replace the mirror members, one at a time, with the larger disk and wait for resilver to complete. Then replace the other disk, resilver again. Craig -- Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Oracle/Sun Certified System Administrator : Oracle/Sun Certified Network Administrator : Oracle/Sun Certified Security Administrator : Symantec/Veritas Certified Instructor : RedHat Certified Systems Administrator +-+ ExitCertified :: Excellence in IT Certified Education Certified training with Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Apple, Symantec, IBM, Red Hat, MySQL, Hitachi Storage, SpringSource and VMWare. 1.800.803.EXIT (3948) | www.ExitCertified.com +-+ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool split how it works?
From the OpenSolaris ZFS FAQ page: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+zfs/faq If you want to use a hardware-level backup or snapshot feature instead of the ZFS snapshot feature, then you will need to do the following steps: * zpool export pool-name * Hardware-level snapshot steps * zpool import pool-name sridhar surampudi wrote: Hi Darren, Thanks for your info. Sorry below might be lengthy : Yes I am looking for actual implementation rather how to use zpool split. My requirement is not at zfs file system level and also not zfs snapshot. As I understood, If my zpool say mypool is created using zpool create mypool mirror device1 device2 and after running : zfs split mypool newpool device2 , I can access device2 with newpool Same data on newpool is available as mypool as long as there are no writes/modifications to newpool. What i am looking for is, if my devices ( say zpool is created with only one device device1) are from an array and I took array snapshot ( zfs /zpool doesn't come in picture as I take hardware snapshot), I will get a snapshot device say device2. I am looking for a way to use the snapshot device device2 by recreating the zpool and zfs stack with an alternate name. zpool split must be doing some changes to metadata of device2 to associate with the new name i.e. newpool, I want to do it for the same for snapshot device created using array/hardware snapshot. Thanks Regards, sridhar. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Sun Certified System Administrator : Sun Certified Network Administrator : Sun Certified Security Administrator : Veritas Certified Instructor 8950 Cal Center Drive Bldg 1, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95826 [e] craig.c...@exitcertified.com [p] 916.669.3970 [f] 916.669.3977 +-+ ExitCertified :: Excellence in IT Certified Education Certified training with Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Apple, Symantec, IBM, Red Hat, MySQL, Hitachi Storage, SpringSource and VMWare. 1.800.803.EXIT (3948) | www.ExitCertified.com +-+ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] NetApp/Oracle-Sun lawsuit done
Run away! Run fast little Netapp. Don't anger the sleeping giant - Oracle! David Magda wrote: Seems that things have been cleared up: NetApp (NASDAQ: NTAP) today announced that both parties have agreed to dismiss their pending patent litigation, which began in 2007 between Sun Microsystems and NetApp. Oracle and NetApp seek to have the lawsuits dismissed without prejudice. The terms of the agreement are confidential. http://tinyurl.com/39qkzgz http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/news-rel-20100909-oracle-settlement.html A recap of the history at: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/09/oracle_netapp_zfs_dismiss/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Sun Certified System Administrator : Sun Certified Network Administrator : Sun Certified Security Administrator : Veritas Certified Instructor 8950 Cal Center Drive Bldg 1, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95826 [e] craig.c...@exitcertified.com [p] 916.669.3970 [f] 916.669.3977 +-+ ExitCertified :: Excellence in IT Certified Education Certified training with Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Apple, Symantec, IBM, Red Hat, MySQL, Hitachi Storage, SpringSource and VMWare. 1.800.803.EXIT (3948) | www.ExitCertified.com +-+ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz capacity osol vs freebsd
When viewing a raidz|raidz1|raidz2 pool, 'zpool list|status' will report the total device space; ie: 3 1TB drives in a raidz will show approx. 3TB space. 'zfs list' will show available FILESYSTEM space, ie: 3 1TB raidz disks, approx 2TB space. Logic wrote: Ian Collins (i...@ianshome.com) wrote: On 07/18/10 11:19 AM, marco wrote: *snip* Yes, that is correct. zfs list reports usable space, which is 2 out of the three drives (parity isn't confined to one device). *snip* Are you sure? That result looks odd. It is what I'd expect to see from a stripe, rather than a raidz. What does zpool iostat -v pool2 report? Hi Ian, I'm the friend with the osol release(snv_117) installed. The output you asked for is: % zpool iostat -v pool2 capacity operationsbandwidth pool used avail read write read write -- - - - - - - pool2 4.26T 1.20T208 78 22.1M 409K raidz1 4.26T 1.20T208 78 22.1M 409K c2d1- - 81 37 7.97M 208K c1d0- - 82 38 7.85M 209K c2d0- - 79 37 7.79M 209K -- - - - - - - It really is a raidz, created a long time ago with build 27a, and I have been replacing the disks ever since, by removing one disk at a time and waiting for the resilvering to be done. greets Leon ___ 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] How many TLDs should you have?
Hi Chris, It sounds like there is some confusion with the recommendation about raidz? vdevs. It is recommended that each raidz? TLD be a single-digit number of disks - so up to 9. The total number of these single digit TLDs is not practically limited. Craig Christopher White wrote: Cindy -- Thanks for the link! I see in one of the examples that there are 14 TLDs (all mirrored). Does that mean there are no performance issues with having more than 9 TLDs? In the Sun class I attended, the instructor said to not use more than 9 TLDs, which seems like it could be very limiting, especially in a SAN setting. Like I said, our storage group presents 15G LUNs to use -- so it'd be difficult to keep the TLDs under 9 and have a very large filesystem. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Chris On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@sun.comwrote: Hi Chris, If you have 40 or so disks then you would create 5-6 RAIDZ virtual devices of 7-8 disks each, or possibly include two disks for the root pool, two disks as spares, and then 36 (4 RAIDZ vdevs of 6 disks) disks for a non-root pool. This configuration guide hasn't been updated for RAIDZ-3 yet, but you will get some ideas about how to configure a redundant configuration of many disks, here: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Configuration_Guide See ZFS Configuration Example (x4500 with raidz2) Cindy On 12/01/09 09:20, Christopher White wrote: All, We're going to start testing ZFS and I had a question about Top Level Devices (TLDs). In Sun's class, they specifically said not to use more than 9 TLDs due to performance concerns. Our storage admins make LUNs roughly 15G in size -- so how would we make a large pool (1TB) if we're limited to only 9 TLDs? The Best Practices guide ( http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#Storage_Pool_Performance_Considerations) suggests not using 40+ disks in a RAIDZ TLD: Avoid creating a RAIDZ, RAIDZ-2, RAIDZ-3, or a mirrored configuration with one logical device of 40+ devices. See the sections below for examples of redundant configurations. Does that mean we should only have 9 RAIDZ TLDs with 39 LUNs in each RAIDZ? Or is the 9 TLDs an old recommendation that has since been changed? Thanks! Chris ___ 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 -- Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Sun Certified System Administrator : Sun Certified Network Administrator : Sun Certified Security Administrator : Veritas Certified Instructor 8950 Cal Center Drive Bldg 1, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95826 [e] craig.c...@exitcertified.com [p] 916.669.3970 [f] 916.669.3977 [w] WWW.EXITCERTIFIED.COM +-+ OTTAWA | SACRAMENTO | MONTREAL | LAS VEGAS | QUEBEC CITY | CALGARY SAN FRANCISCO | VANCOUVER | REGINA | WINNIPEG | TORONTO ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] triple-parity: RAID-Z3
In response to: I don't see much similarity between mirroring and raidz other than that they both support redundancy. Martin wrote: A single parity device against a single data device is, in essence, mirroring. For all intents and purposes, raid and mirroring with this configuration are one and the same. I would have to disagree with this. Mirrored data will have mulitple copies of the actual data. Any copy is a valid source for data access. Lose one disk and the other is a complete original. A raid 3/4/5/6/z/z2 configuration will generate a mathematical value to restore a portion of the lost data one of the storage units in the stripe. A 2-disk raidz will have 1/2 of each disk's used space holding primary data interlaced with the other 1/2 holding a parity reflection of the data. Any time we access the parity representation, some computation will be needed to render the live data. This would have to add *some* overhead to the io. Craig Cory ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS usable space calculations (Help!)
Brent, Brent Wagner wrote: Can someone point me to a document describing how available space in a zfs is calculated or review the data below and tell me what I'm missing? Thanks in advance, -Brent === I have a home project with 3x250 GB+3x300 GB in raidz, so I expect to lose 1x300 GB to parity. Total size:1650GB Total size using 1024 to measure: ~1534 GB Expected raidz zpool size after losing 300 GB to parity: ~1350 GB Expected raidz zpool size using 1024 to measure: ~1255.5 GB Actual zpool size: 1.36T Single zfs on the pool - available size: 1.11T I realize zfs is going to have some overhead but 250 GB seems a little excessive...right? I thought maybe the zpool was showing all 6 disks and the filesystem reflected the remaining space after discounting the parity disk but that doesn't add up in a way that makes sense either (see above). Can someone help explain these numbers? Thanks, -Brent When you say 3x250 GB+3x300 GB in raidz do you mean: 1) # zpool create mypool raidz 250gb-1 250gb-2 250gb-3 300gb-1 \ 300gb-2 300gb-3 or 2) # zpool create mypool raidz 250gb-1 250gb-2 250gb-3 \ raidz 300gb-1 300gb-2 300gb-3 As I understand it, #1 would waste the extra 50gb on each 300gb drive and give you 1500gb usable space. 250gb of that (1/6th) would be parity, so 1250gb data space. #2 would make 2 vdevs of 750gb and 900gb totaling 1650gb space. Parity would use 250gb from the 1st vdev and 300gb from the second; so 1100gb of data space is available. Either way, when you list raidz* pools with # zpool list you see the total physical space. When you list the filesystems with # zfs list you get the usable filesystem space, which is where the parity is implemented. Here's an example with 250MB files and 300MB files: For #1 scenario: # zpool create -f mypool1 raidz /250d1 /250d2 /250d3 /300d1 /300d2 /300d3 # zpool list NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT mypool11.44G145K 1.44G 0% ONLINE - # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT mypool1 115K 1.16G 40.7K /mypool1 # zpool status pool: mypool1 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM mypool1 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 /250d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 /250d2 ONLINE 0 0 0 /250d3 ONLINE 0 0 0 /300d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 /300d2 ONLINE 0 0 0 /300d3 ONLINE 0 0 0 -- And for #2: # zpool create -f mypool2 raidz /250d1 /250d2 /250d3 raidz /300d1 /300d2 /300d3 # zpool list NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT mypool21.58G157K 1.58G 0% ONLINE - # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT mypool2 101K 1.02G 32.6K /mypool2 # zpool status pool: mypool2 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM mypool2 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 /250d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 /250d2 ONLINE 0 0 0 /250d3 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 /300d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 /300d2 ONLINE 0 0 0 /300d3 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors --- Does this describe what you're seeing? Craig -- Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Sun Certified System Administrator : Sun Certified Network Administrator : Sun Certified Security Administrator : Veritas Certified Instructor 8950 Cal Center Drive Bldg 1, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95826 [e] craig.c...@exitcertified.com [p] 916.669.3970 [f] 916.669.3977 [w] WWW.EXITCERTIFIED.COM +-+ OTTAWA | SACRAMENTO | MONTREAL | LAS VEGAS | QUEBEC CITY | CALGARY SAN FRANCISCO | VANCOUVER | REGINA | WINNIPEG | TORONTO ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Will there be a GUI for ZFS ?
The GUI is an implementation of the webmin tool. You must be running the server - started with /usr/sbin/smcwebserver start Then, access it with https://hostname:6789/zfs Regards Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Sun Certified System Administrator : Sun Certified Network Administrator : Sun Certified Security Administrator : Veritas Certified Instructor 8950 Cal Center Drive Bldg 1, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95826 [e] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [p] 916.669.3970 [f] 916.669.3977 [w] WWW.EXITCERTIFIED.COM +-+ OTTAWA | SACRAMENTO | MONTREAL | LAS VEGAS | QUEBEC CITY | CALGARY SAN FRANCISCO | VANCOUVER | REGINA | WINNIPEG | TORONTO In response to Rob Windsor, who said: Richard Elling wrote: Tim Thomas wrote: The GUI is already in Solaris 10 Update 3 and later. Just point a web browser at https://yourhost:6789, login as root and you will see the launch point for the GUI on the console page..the ZFS GUI looks like this.. Try https://localhost:6789 Secure by default has the external access denied by default. Also, for those who haven't used it yet, the GUI will also show the CLI commands it will use. So you can learn the CLI from the GUI. -- richard What pkg and svc is this? (I don't see it on my 11/06 installs) Rob++ -- Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __o Life: [EMAIL PROTECTED]_`\,_ (_)/ (_) They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance. -- Major General John Sedgwick ___ 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
[zfs-discuss] Multipathing and ZFS
I have had a brief introduction to ZFS and while discussing it with some other folks the question came up about use with multipathed storage. What, if any, configuration or interaction does ZFS have with a multipathed storage setup - however it may be managed. thanks! Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Sun Certified System Administrator : Sun Certified Network Administrator : Sun Certified Security Administrator : Veritas Certified Instructor 8950 Cal Center Drive Bldg 1, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95826 [e] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [p] 916.669.3970 [f] 916.669.3977 [w] WWW.EXITCERTIFIED.COM +-+ OTTAWA | SACRAMENTO | MONTREAL | LAS VEGAS | QUEBEC CITY | CALGARY SAN FRANCISCO | VANCOUVER | REGINA | WINNIPEG | TORONTO ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 'zpool history' proposal
I, too, am late to this thread but I caught something that didn't seem right to me in this specific example. For the administration of the non-global zones, SunEducation (for whom I am an instructor) is stressing that the ng zones are Software Virtualizations (my quotes) and that the hardware and infrastructure are managed by the global zone admin. In this case, the ngz admins would not have access or permission to corrupt their filesystems at the zpool/zfs level. Unless zfs is to offer a different management model, I don't suspect we will need to differentiate the (incapacitated) ngz admins from the gz admins. Regards, Craig On Wed, May 3, 2006 3:05 pm, Eric Schrock said: On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 02:47:57PM -0700, eric kustarz wrote: Jason Schroeder wrote: eric kustarz wrote: The following case is about to go to PSARC. Comments are welcome. eric To piggyback on earlier comments re: adding hostname and user: What is the need for zpool history to distinguish zfs commands that were executed by priviledged users in non-global zones for those datasets under ngz ownership? I personally don't see a need to distinguish between zones. However, with delegated administration, it would be nice to know who did (say) destroy that file system - the local root or some remote user. Keep in mind that one username (or uid) in a local zone is different from the same username in the global zone, since they can be running different name services. In the simplest example, you could have an entry that said something like: root zfs destroy tank/foo And if you were using datasets delegated to local zones, you wouldn't know if that was 'root' in the global zone or 'root' in the local zone. If you are going to log a user at all, you _need_ to log the zone name as well. Even without usernames, it would probably be useful to know that a particular action was done in a particular zone. Imagine a service provider with several zones delegated to different users, and each user has their own portion of the namespace. At some point, you get a servicecall from a customer saying someone deleted my filesystems You could look at the zpool history, but without a zone name, you wouldn't know if was your fault (from the global zone) or theirs (from the local zone). - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
