Re: [zfs-discuss] Each user has his own zfs filesystem??
Op 24-7-2011 16:51 schreef Orvar Korvar: I dont get it. I created users with System - Administration - Users and Groups meny. I thought every user will get his own ZFS filesystem? But when I do # zfs list I can not see a zfs listing for each user. I only see this: rpool/export 60,4G 131G32K /export rpool/export/home 60,4G 131G 60,4G /export/home rpool/export/home/michaelroot 760K 131G 760K /export/home/michaelroot I have at least three users in my system. I thought they would be listed when I do zfs list? Maybe you don't have their home directories created while adding them...? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Still no way to recover a corrupted pool
Op 16-5-2011 22:55 schreef Freddie Cash: On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Brandon Highbh...@freaks.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Freddie Cashfjwc...@gmail.com wrote: Running ZFSv28 on 64-bit FreeBSD 8-STABLE. I'd suggest trying to import the pool into snv_151a (Solaris 11 Express), which is the reference and development platform for ZFS. Would not import in Solaris 11 Express. :( Could not even find any pools to import. Even when using zpool import -d /dev/dsk or any other import commands. Most likely due to using a FreeBSD-specific method of labelling the disks. That should not be the case. You either use ZFS or you don't What's most frustrating is that this is the third time I've built this pool due to corruption like this, within three months. :( Three times in three months is not normal. You should be looking for the cause within your hardware imho. ZFS is very stable in my experiences, but I must say I always have run solaris (10/11) with it and not FreeBSD. I once tried and immediately got troubles I never had before, so I dropped the zfs/fbsd unity. ;-) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] mirrored drive
OK, I've got a proble I can't solve by myself. I've installed solaris 11 using just one drive. Now I want to create a mirror by attached a second one tot the rpool. However, the first one has NO partition 9 but the second one does. This way the sizes differ if I create a partiotion 0 (needed because it's a boot disk).. How can I get the second disk look exactly the same like the first? Or can't that be done. Dick ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mirrored drive
On 29-11-2010 14:35, rwali...@washdcmail.com wrote: I haven't done this on Solaris 11 Express, but this worked on OpenSolaris 2009-06: prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0s0 | fmthard -s - /dev/rdsk/c5t1d0s0 Where the first disk is the current root and the second one is the new mirror. It works om solaris 11 too. Someone else pointed ut he webpage. It worked very well. Disks are mirrored and running.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] non-ECC Systems and ZFS for home users (was: Please warn a home user against OpenSolaris under VirtualBox under WinXP ; ))
On 23-9-2010 10:25, casper@sun.com wrote: I'm using ZFS on a system w/o ECC; it works (it's an Atom 230). I'm using ZFS on a non-ECC machine for years now without any issues. Never had errors. Plus, like others said, other OS'ses have the same problems and also run quite well. If not, you don't know it. With ZFS you will know. I would say - just go for it. You will never want to go back. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] non-ECC Systems and ZFS for home users
On 23-9-2010 16:34, Frank Middleton wrote: For home use, used Suns are available at ridiculously low prices and they seem to be much better engineered than your typical PC. Memory failures are much more likely than winning the pick 6 lotto... And about what SUN systems are you thinking for 'home use' ? The likeliness of memory failures might be much higher than becoming a millionair, but in the years past I have never had one. And my home sytems are rather cheap. Mind you, not the cheapest, but rather cheap. I do buy good memory though. So, to me, with a good backup I feel rather safe using ZFS. I also had it running for quite some time on a 32bits machine and that also worked out fine. The fact that a perfectly good file can not be read because of a bad checksum is a design failure imho. There should be an option to overrule this behaviour of ZFS. My 2çt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 14-8-2010 14:58, Russ Price wrote: 6. Abandon ZFS completely and go back to LVM/MD-RAID. I ran it for years before switching to ZFS, and it works - but it's a bitter pill to swallow after drinking the ZFS Kool-Aid. Nice summary. ;-) I switched to FreeBSD for the moment and it works very well although I have some ZFS issues I do not have in the latest OpenSolaris b134 release. The pkg system is fine too. Binary updates are a piece of cake. I'm no fan of LVM and although I have some ZFS issues now I'm sure they will be solved. In the meantime I created some gmirrors and they do the job well. I'd love to see the day coming I'm able to use ZFS again. Kool-Aid? An understatement. Once used to ZFs it is very difficult to do without. My main hopes are for FreeBSD or maybe Illumos, the latter has a long way to go yet. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS automatic rollback and data rescue.
On 14-8-2010 15:56, Constantine wrote: Hi. I've got the ZFS filesystem (opensolaris 2009.06), witch, as i can see, was automatically rollbacked by OS to the lastest snapshot after the power failure. There is a trouble - snapshot is too old, and ,consequently, there is a questions -- Can I browse pre-rollbacked corrupted branch of FS ? And, if I can, how ? Look in the (hidden) .zfs directory (mind the dot) ___ 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
On 13-8-2010 22:43, Gary Mills wrote: If this information is correct, http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043 further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors. Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris with no public distributions. The community has been abandoned. True and very sad. I changed my LAN back to FreeBSD. It does not even come close to OpenSolaris but it is stable and it is developed and open. And it (still) has ZFS support. I wonder for how long.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS data from snv_b134 to fbsd
I want to transfer a lot of ZFS data from an old OpenSolaris ZFS mirror (v22) to a new FreeBSD-8.1 ZFs mirror (v14). If I boot off the OpenSolaris boot CD and import both mirrors will the copying from v22 ZFS to v14 ZFS be harmless? I'm not sure if this is teh right mailinglist for this question. Let me know. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Upgrading 2009.06 to something current
On 1-8-2010 19:57, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: I've kind of given up on that. This is a home production server; it's got all my photos on it. The uncertainty around OpenSolaris made me drop it. I'm very sorry to say, because I loved the system. I do not want to worry all the time though, so I changed (back) to FreeBSD/amd64 with ZFS. I must say it runs very well and maintenance is very easy/clear. Not much help for you. I do hope there will be another OpenSolaris release, but I have my doubts. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS OpenSolaris and FreeBSD
If I create a ZFS mirrored zpool on FreeBSD (zfs v14) will I be able to boot off an OpenSolaris-b131 CD and copy my data off (another) ZFS mirror created by OpenSolaris (ZFS v22)? A simple question, but my data is precious, so I ask beforehand. ;-) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?
On 28-6-2010 12:13, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: *sweat* These systems are all running for years nowand I considered them safe... Have I been at risk all this time?! They're still running, are they not? So, stop sweating. g But you're right about the changed patching service from Oracle. It sucks big time. Safety patches should be available, even it the OS is free. You can't expect users to run unsafe systems just because they have not payed for the OS. After all, it's Oracle (SUN) who gives away the OS. -- + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux
Op Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:00:39 +0200 schreef Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de: The main problem with GPL related license debates seems to be that very few people did read the GPL license text. Or simply do not want to and just believe what they have been told to be the truth. If things are told often enough they have a tendency to become true, even if they are not. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.xx b134 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] don't mount a zpool on boot
Op Sat, 29 May 2010 20:34:54 +0200 schreef Kees Nuyt k.n...@zonnet.nl: On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:53:17 -0700, John Andrunas j...@andrunas.net wrote: Can I make a pool not mount on boot? I seem to recall reading somewhere how to do it, but can't seem to find it now. As Tomas said, export the pool before shutdown. Why don't you set the canmount=noauto option in the zfs dataset. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b134 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] diff between sharenfs and sharesmb
I have some ZFS datasets that are shared through CIFS/NFS. So I created them with sharenfs/sharesmb options. I have full access from windows (through cifs) to the datasets, however, all files and directories are created with (UNIX) permisions of (--)/(d--). So, although I can access the files now from my windows machiens, I can -NOT- access the same files with NFS. I know I gave myself full permissions in the ACL list. That's why sharesmb works I guess. But what do I have to do to make -BOTH- work? -- + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] b134 - Mirrored rpool won't boot unless both mirrors are present
On 28-3-2010 7:35, Victor Latushkin wrote: This problem is known an fixed in later builds: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6923585 AFAIK it is going to be included into b134a as well It's now March 28. For OpenSolaris 2010.03 that means only a few days remaining... Or would it be called 2010.04 ? ;-) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b134 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS aclmode property
On 6-3-2010 18:41, Ralf Utermann wrote: So from this site: we very much support the idea of adding ignore and deny values for the aclmode property! However, reading PSARC/2010/029, it looks like we will get aclmode=discard for everybody and the property removed. I hope this is not the end of the story ... +1 Carefully constructed ACL's should -never- be destroyed by an (unwanted/unexpected) chmod. Extra aclmode properties should not be so hard to implement. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b131 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] fat32 ntfs or zfs
Op 27-2-2010 13:15, Mertol Ozyoney schreef: This depends on what you are looking for. Generaly zfs will be more secure due to checksum feature. Having seen a lot of ntfs / fat drives going south die to bad sectors i'd not clasify them very secure. However ntfs and fat can be used nearly on every os. And also you shouldnt forget the extra capabilities of zfs like snaphots ... I'll go with ZFS. Like someone said with 'copies=2' for extra safety. That should do it I think. Compression will slow my system down too much, so I'll skip that one. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b131 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] copies=2 and dedup
I want zfs on a single drive so I use copies=2 for -some- extra safety. But I wonder if dedup=on could mean something in this case too? That way the same blocks would never be written more than twice. Or would that harm the reliability of the drive and should I just use copies=2? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b131 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] move ZFS fs to a zone
# zfs list rpool/www 3.64G 377G 3.64G /var/www rpool/zones 3.00G 377G24K /zones rpool/zones/anduin1.94G 377G24K /zones/anduin rpool/zones/anduin/ROOT 1.94G 377G21K legacy rpool/zones/anduin/ROOT/zbe 1.94G 377G 1.91G legacy rpool/zones/midgard 1.06G 377G24K /zones/midgard rpool/zones/midgard/ROOT 1.06G 377G21K legacy rpool/zones/midgard/ROOT/zbe 1.06G 377G 1.06G legacy I want to move the rpool/www zfs filesystem to zone midgard. Is this possible and how is this done? I guess it will no longer be accessible from the GZ then. That would be good, because I want to seperate my webserver from my global zone. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b131 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] unionfs help
Frank Cusack wrote: Is it possible to emulate a unionfs with zfs and zones somehow? My zones are sparse zones and I want to make part of /usr writable within a zone. (/usr/perl5/mumble to be exact) Why don't you just export that directory with NFS (rw) to your sparse zone and mount it on /usr/perl5/mumble ? Or is this too simple a thought? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Home ZFS NAS - 2 drives or 3?
Op 30-1-2010 20:53, Mark schreef: I have a 1U server that supports 2 SATA drives in the chassis. I have 2 750 GB SATA drives. When I install opensolaris, I assume it will want to use all or part of one of those drives for the install. That leaves me with the remaining part of disk 1, and all of disk 2. Question is, how do I best install OS to maximize my ability to use ZFS snapshots and recover if one drive fails? Install on one drive. After that attach the second and crate a mirror. You -NEED- redundancy. Alternatively, I guess I could add a small USB drive to use solely for the OS and then have all of the 2 750 drives for ZFS. Is that a bad idea since the OS drive will be standalone? Very bad idea. Not safe. ZFS on one disk is asking for trouble. Take two smaller disks for the OS (mirrored vdev) and the two larger ones as a second vdev (mirrored too) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot attach c5d0s0 to c4d0s0: device is too small
Op 28-1-2010 17:35, Cindy Swearingen schreef: Thomas, Excellent and much better suggestion... :-) You can use beadm to specify another root pool by using the -p option. The beadm operation will set the bootfs pool property and update the GRUB entry. It turns out not to be excellent at all. Beadm does create a new ABE in the new zpool, but the old zpool remains the leading zpool. This means you can not destroy it from within the newly booted BE plus /export/... comes from the main original zpool. The latter can be solved by umounting with the -f option and remounting the /export from the new BE, but the main issue is that the old zpool remains in charge. I'm gonna try booting off an USB stick later this evening and if that fails will go the way of restoring the system like Cindy mentions in her wonderful ZFS manual. http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide Dick ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot attach c5d0s0 to c4d0s0: device is too small
Cindy Swearingen wrote: On some disks, the default partitioning is not optimal and you have to modify it so that the bulk of the disk space is in slice 0. Yes, I know, but in this case the second disk indeed is smaller ;-( So I wonder, should I reinstall the whole thing on this smaller disk and thren let the bigger second attach? That would mean opening up the case and all that, because I don't have a DVD player built in. So I thought I'd go the zfs send|recv way. What are yout thoughts about this? Another thought is that a recent improvement was that you can attach a disk that is an equivalent size, but not exactly the same geometry. Which OpenSolaris release is this? b131 And this only works if the difference is realy (REALLY) small. :) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE +http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 05/09 ZFS+ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot attach c5d0s0 to c4d0s0: device is too small
Op 28-1-2010 16:52, Thomas Maier-Komor schreef: have you considered creating an alternate boot environment on the smaller disk, rebooting into this new boot environment, and then attaching the larger disk after destroy the old boot environment? beadm might do this job for you... What a great idea. Are there any special preparations I have to do on the second smaller disk before I can create this ABE? It sounds like the simplest option after installing new hardware. ;-) I guess it's enough if the disk has a sun partitionon it? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot attach c5d0s0 to c4d0s0: device is too small
Op 28-1-2010 17:35, Cindy Swearingen schreef: Thomas, Excellent and much better suggestion... :-) You can use beadm to specify another root pool by using the -p option. The beadm operation will set the bootfs pool property and update the GRUB entry. Dick, you will need to update the BIOS to boot from the smaller disk. Yes yes yes. It's a great idea. So, I first create thsi new root pool on the smaller disk and then I use beadm? I can't use the same name (rpool) I guess. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot attach c5d0s0 to c4d0s0: device is too small
Op 28-1-2010 17:35, Cindy Swearingen schreef: Thomas, Excellent and much better suggestion... :-) You can use beadm to specify another root pool by using the -p option. The beadm operation will set the bootfs pool property and update the GRUB entry. Dick, you will need to update the BIOS to boot from the smaller disk. It's not that great an idea after all. Creating a new ABE in the new root pool goes wel, BUT all other files systems on rpool (rpool/export, export/home, etc) don't get transfered. So, attaching is not possible because '/export/home/me' is busy ;-) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot attach c5d0s0 to c4d0s0: device is too small
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 12:34 -0700, Lori Alt wrote: But those could be copied by send/recv from the larger disk (current root pool) to the smaller disk (intended new root pool). You won't be attaching anything until you can boot off the smaller disk and then it won't matter what's on the larger disk because attaching the larger disk to the root mirror will destroy the contents of the larger disk anyway. You are right of course. Are these right values for amd64 swap/dump: zfs create -V 2G rpool/dump zfs create -V 2G -b 4k rpool/swap Are these -b 4k values OK? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot attach c5d0s0 to c4d0s0: device is too small connect another disk
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 08:44 -0700, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Or, if possible, connect another larger disk and attach it to the original root disk or even replace the smaller root pool disk with the larger disk. I go for that one. But since it's a smoewhat older system I only have IDE and SATA(150) connections. IDE disks are rare these days. Question: do SATA2 disks work on SATA(1) connections? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] cannot attach c5d0s0 to c4d0s0: device is too small
cannot attach c5d0s0 to c4d0s0: device is too small So I guess I installed OpenSolaris onto the smallest disk. Now I cannot create a mirrored root, because the device is smaller. What is the best way to correct this except starting all over with two disks of the same size (which I don't have)? Do I zfs send the stream to the smallest disk and will the bigger one attach itself? Or is there another way. I need redundency, so I hope to get answers soon. ;-) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs streams
Can I send a zfs send stream (ZFS pool version 22 ; ZFS filesystem version 4) to a zfs receive stream on Solaris 10 (ZFS pool version 15 ; ZFS filesystem version 4)? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b131 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Backing up a ZFS pool
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 07:24 -0500, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Personally, I use zfs send | zfs receive to an external disk. Initially a full image, and later incrementals. Do these incrementals go into the same filesystem that received the original zfs stream? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] solaris 10U7
I just noticed that my zpool is still running v10 and my zfs filesystems are on v3. This is on solaris 10U3. Before upgrading the zpool and ZFS versions I'd like to know the supported versions by solaris 10 update.7 I'd rather not make my zpools unaccessable ;) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Boot Recovery after Motherboard Death
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:22 +, Moritz Willers wrote: The host identity had - of course - changed with the new motherboard and it no longer recognised the zpool as its own. 'zpool import -f rpool' to take ownership, reboot and it all worked no problem (which was amazing in itself as I had switched from AMD to Intel ...). Do I understand correctly if I read this as: OpenSolaris is able to switch between systems without reinstalling? Just a zfs import -f and everything runs? Wow, that would be an improvemment and would make things more like *BSD/linux. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Boot Recovery after Motherboard Death
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 09:08 -0800, Richard Elling wrote: On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:53 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote: On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:22 +, Moritz Willers wrote: The host identity had - of course - changed with the new motherboard and it no longer recognised the zpool as its own. 'zpool import -f rpool' to take ownership, reboot and it all worked no problem (which was amazing in itself as I had switched from AMD to Intel ...). Do I understand correctly if I read this as: OpenSolaris is able to switch between systems without reinstalling? Just a zfs import -f and everything runs? Wow, that would be an improvemment and would make things more like *BSD/linux. Solaris has been able to do that for 20+ years. Why do you think it should be broken now? Because, like I said, I always understood it was very difficult to change disks to another system and run the installed solaris version on that new hardware. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b129 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS send | verify | receive
On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 09:22 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: You can also stream into a gzip or lzop wrapper in order to obtain the benefit of incremental CRCs and some compression as well. Can you give an example command line for this option please? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] sharemgr
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 10:00 -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote: To each their own. [cut the rest of your reply] In general: I stand corrected. I was rude. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] sharemgr
glidic anthony wrote: I have a solution with use zfs set sharenfs=rw,nosuid zpool but i prefer use the sharemgr command. Then you prefere wrong. ZFS filesystems are not shared this way. Read up on ZFS and NFS. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE +http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 05/09 ZFS+ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Liveupgrade'd to U8 and now can't boot previous U6 BE :(
Ben Middleton wrote: I'm just looking for a clean way to remove the old BE, and then remove the old snapshot without interfering with Live Upgrade from working in the future. Remove the right line from /etc/lutab Remove the ICF.number and INODE.number where number is the same as the line in /etc/lutab from the /etc/lu directory. You'll notice that with lustatus the BE is gone. Remove the ZFS datasets and snapshots for the BE you just deleted. I've done this hack in the past quite some times and it always worked fine. It's not supported by SUN though. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u8 10/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b125 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import single user mode incompatible version
Tim Cook wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Paul Lyons paulrly...@gmail.com mailto:paulrly...@gmail.com wrote: When I boot off Solaris 10 U8 I get the error that pool is formatted using an incompatible version. You're booting from an old cd that has an old version of zfs. Grab a new iso. It might be that I can't read but does OP not state he is booting off Solaris 10 update 8 DVD? What can be newer than that one? If the miniroot really only supports ZFS v10 then this is indeed not good (unworkable/unusable/..) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u8 10/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b125 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Strange problem with liveupgrade on zfs (10u7 and u8)
Mark Horstman wrote: I don't see anything wrong with my /etc/vfstab. Until I get this resolved, I'm afraid to patch and use the new BE. It's the vfstab file in the newly created ABE that is wrongly written to. Try to mount this new ABE and check out for yourself. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u8 10/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS snapshots rsync --delete
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 18:12 +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote: Well, thats what i would expect too. It seems strange that you can't edit or remove singular files from snapshots [...] That would make the snapshot not a snapshot anymore. There would be differences.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Liveupgrade'd to U8 and now can't boot previous U6 BE :(
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 08:11 -0700, Philip Brown wrote: same problem here on sun x2100 amd64 It's a bootblock issue. If you really want to get back to u6 you have to installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 from th update 6 image so mount it (with lumount or easier, with zfs mount) and make sure you take the stage1 stage2 from this update. ***WARNING*** adter doing so, you're u6 will boot, but you're u8 will not. In activating update 8 all GRUB items are synced. That way all BE's are bootable. That's the way it's supposed to be. Maybe something went wrong and only the new u8 BE has the understanding of the new bootblocks. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs on s10u8
Any known issues for the new ZFS on solaris 10 update 8? Or is it still wiser to wait doing a zpool upgrade? Because older ABE's can no longer be accessed then. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u8 10/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs on s10u8
Any known issues for the new ZFS on solaris 10 update 8? Or is it still wiser to wait doing a zpool upgrade? Because older ABE's can no longer be accessed then. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u8 10/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Strange problem with liveupgrade on zfs (10u7 and u8)
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:07:54 PDT Brian bmul...@gmail.com wrote: ERROR: svc:/system/filesystem/minimal:default failed to mount /var You have found it yourself already. LU packages from update 8 create lines in /etc/vfstab for ZFS filesystems! Former LU packages never did! They left a good working vfstab alone. This behaviour is also related to errors with zones btw. The fact that lines in vfstab are created is neglected in reactions so far. I think that is weird. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u8 10/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] s10u8: lots of fixes, any commentary?
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:06:23 +1300 Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote: + [ /zoneRoot/common = legacy ] ABSURT. I'm sure the zone has it's own mountpoint set. And now LU presumes all of a sudden a legacy mp? (It has even set it in /etc/vfstab in the new ABE). cannot mount 'rpool/ROOT/10u8/zoneRoot/common-10u8': legacy mountpoint use mount(1M) to mount this filesystem That's how LU scr*s things up. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u8 10/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] memory use
Every ZFS filesystem uses system memory, but is this also true for -NOT- mounted filesystems (with the canmount=noauto option set)? Second question: would it make much difference to have 12 or 22 ZFS filesystems? What's the memory footprint of a ZFS filesystem -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u8 10/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZPOOL Metadata / Data Error - Help
Bruno Sousa wrote: Action: Restore the file in question if possible. Otherwise restore the entire pool from backup. metadata:0x0 metadata:0x15 Hmm, and what file(s) would this be? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs vbox and shared folders
Are there any known issues involving VirtualBox using shared folders from a ZFS filesystem? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] backup disk of rpool on solaris
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 22:03 -0400, Jeremy Kister wrote: I added a disk to the rpool of my zfs root: # zpool attach rpool c1t0d0s0 c1t1d0s0 # installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c1t1d0s0 I waited for the resilver to complete, then i shut the system down. then i physically removed c1t0d0 and put c1t1d0 in it's place. I tried to boot the system, but it panics: Afaik you can't remove the first disk. You've created a mirror of two disks from either which you may boot the system. BUT the second disk must remain where it is. You can set the bios to boot from it if the first disk fails, but you may not *swap* them. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Real help
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 11:41 -0700, vattini giacomo wrote: Hi there,i'm in a bad situation,under Ubuntu i was tring to import a solaris zpool that is in /dev/sda1,while the Ubuntu is in /dev/sda5;not being able to mount the solaris pool i decide to destroy the pool created like that sudo zfs-fuse sudo zpool create hazz0 /dev/sda1 sudo zpool destroy hazz0 sudo reboot Now opensolaris is not booting everything is vanished Is there anyhow to restore everything? Any idea about the meaning of the verb DESTROY ? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b123 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Q about incremental zfs send recv
Probably a dumb (but basic) question about incremental zfs backups. After reading docs I'm still nnot sure, so I ask here. # zfs snapshot -r rpool/ROOT/b...@0901 # zfs send rpool/ROOT/b...@0901 | zfs recv -Fdu tank # zfs snapshot -r rpool/ROOT/b...@0902 # zfs send -i rpool/ROOT/b...@0901 rpool/ROOT/b...@0902 | zfs recv -vF # tank What I'd like to see confirmed is that the incremental backup is received in the -same- filesystem as the originally backup up one (tank) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b122 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with snv_122 Zpool issue
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:38:43 PDT Hamed bar...@etek.chalmers.se wrote: Please help me. I really need help. I did a stupid thing i know. Afaik help does not exist in this case other than making a full backup / restore. There is no return to former zfs versions possible. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b122 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] check a zfs rcvd file
Lori Alt wrote: On 09/04/09 10:17, dick hoogendijk wrote: Lori Alt wrote: The -u option to zfs recv (which was just added to support flash archive installs, but it's useful for other reasons too) suppresses all mounts of the received file systems. So you can mount them yourself afterward in whatever order is appropriate, or do a 'zfs mount -a'. You misunderstood my problem. It is very convenient that the filesystems are not mounted. I only wish they could stay that way!. Alas, they ARE mounted (even if I don't want them to) when I *reboot* the system. And THAT's when thing get ugly. I then have different zfs filesystems using the same mountpoints! The backed up ones have the same mountpoints as their origin :-/ - The only way to stop it is to *export* the backup zpool OR to change *manualy* the zfs prop canmount=noauto in all backed up snapshots/filesystems. As I understand I cannot give this canmount=noauto to the zfs receive command. # zfs send -Rv rp...@0909 | zfs receive -Fdu backup/snaps There is a RFE to allow zfs recv to assign properties, but I'm not sure whether it would help in your case. I would have thought that canmount=noauto would have already been set on the sending side, however. In that case, the property should be preserved when the stream is preserved. Well, I checked again today. This is what happens: NAME PROPERTY VALUESOURCE tank/ROOT/daffy canmount on default NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE rpool/ROOT/daffy canmount noautolocal As you can see the original dataset (rpool/ROOT/daffy) has canmount=noauto set. However, the received dataset (zfs send rpool/ROOT/da...@090905 | zfs receive -Fdu /tank) has this property changed(!) into canmount=on. So, what you state is not true. The property is NOT preserved. Is this a bug? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 B121 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] check a zfs rcvd file
Lori Alt wrote: The -n option does some verification. It verifies that the record headers distributed throughout the stream are syntactically valid. Since each record header contains a length field which allows the next header to be found, one bad header will cause the processing of the stream to abort. But it doesn't verify the content of the data associated with each record. So, storing the stream in a zfs received filesystem is the better option. Alas, it also is the most difficult one. Storing to a file with zfs send -Rv is easy. The result is just a file and if your reboot the system all is OK. However, if I zfs receive -Fdu into a zfs filesystem I'm in trouble when I reboot the system. I get confusion on mountpoints! Let me explain: Some time ago I backup up my rpool and my /export ; /export/home to /backup/snaps (with zfs receive -Fdu). All's OK because the newly created zfs FS's stay unmounted 'till the next reboot(!). When I rebooted my system (due to a kernel upgrade) the system would nog boot, because it had mounted the zfs FS backup/snaps/export on /export and backup/snaps/export/home on /export/home. The system itself had those FS's too, of course. So, there was a mix up. It would be nice if the backup FS's would not be mounted (canmount=noauto), but I cannot give this option when I create the zfs send | receive, can I? And giving this option later on is very difficult, because canmount is NOT recursive! And I don't want to set it manualy on all those backup up FS's. I wonder how other people overcome this mountpoint issue. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 b122 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] check a zfs rcvd file
Lori Alt wrote: The -u option to zfs recv (which was just added to support flash archive installs, but it's useful for other reasons too) suppresses all mounts of the received file systems. So you can mount them yourself afterward in whatever order is appropriate, or do a 'zfs mount -a'. You misunderstood my problem. It is very convenient that the filesystems are not mounted. I only wish they could stay that way!. Alas, they ARE mounted (even if I don't want them to) when I *reboot* the system. And THAT's when thing get ugly. I then have different zfs filesystems using the same mountpoints! The backed up ones have the same mountpoints as their origin :-/ - The only way to stop it is to *export* the backup zpool OR to change *manualy* the zfs prop canmount=noauto in all backed up snapshots/filesystems. As I understand I cannot give this canmount=noauto to the zfs receive command. # zfs send -Rv rp...@0909 | zfs receive -Fdu backup/snaps -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 B121 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] check a zfs rcvd file
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:06:35 -0500 (CDT) Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: Nothing prevents validating the self-verifying archive file via this zfs recv -vn technique. Does this verify the ZFS format/integrity of the stream? Or is the only way to do that to zfs recv the stream into ZFS? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 B121 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] check a zfs rcvd file
Some time ago there was some discussion on zfs send | rcvd TO A FILE. Apart form the disadvantages which I now know someone mentioned a CHECK to be at least sure that the file itself was OK (without one or more bits that felt over). I lost this reply and would love to hear this check again. In other words how can I be sure of the validity of the received file in the next command line: # zfs send -Rv rp...@090902 /backup/snaps/rpool.090902 I only want to know how to check the integrity of the received file. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 B121 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] incremental backup with zfs to file
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:05:15 -0400 Edward Ned Harvey sola...@nedharvey.com wrote: zfs send -Rv rp...@0908 /net/remote/rpool/snaps/rpool.0908 The recommended thing is to zfs send | zfs receive [...] [cut the rest of the reply] I want to thank everyone for the insights shared on this matter. I learned a lot and will change the procedure to a send/recv. The receiving system is on the exact same level of ZFS, so that's fine. I -DO- think however that the advice in the mentioned link should be rewrote to this procedure or at least it should be clearly mentioned as a way to go. (CINDY?) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] incremental backup with zfs to file
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:05:15 -0400 Edward Ned Harvey sola...@nedharvey.com wrote: zfs send -Rv rp...@0908 /net/remote/rpool/snaps/rpool.0908 The recommended thing is to zfs send | zfs receive I have a zpool named backup for this purpose (mirrored). Do I create a seperate FS (backup/FS) into it or can I use your example like: zfs send rp...@0908 | zfs receive -Fd bac...@0908 -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] incremental backup with zfs to file
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:36:13 +0100 Darren J Moffat darr...@opensolaris.org wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:05:15 -0400 Edward Ned Harvey sola...@nedharvey.com wrote: zfs send -Rv rp...@0908 /net/remote/rpool/snaps/rpool.0908 The recommended thing is to zfs send | zfs receive I have a zpool named backup for this purpose (mirrored). Do I create a seperate FS (backup/FS) into it or can I use your example like: zfs send rp...@0908 | zfs receive -Fd bac...@0908 Unless this second pool is on a different physical location, this is not a backup. That depends what backup means in this particular environment and what the risk model is. If fire, theft or other things that normally require and offsite copy aren't part of this persons risk model then it may well be a perfectly sufficient backup for them. A real backup is able to survive a fire, theft or similar problems. Not all secondary/offline copies of data need to survive those risks. This particular case could be, for example: if backup is a pool made from a disk (or set of disks) that are either physically removed or otherwise protected from fire and/or theft then it is a backup by your definition. The drives may get detached when the receive is finished and put them into a firesafe. Thank you for the analyze. This is the case. The drives are stored somewhere else after the backup has been made. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] incremental backup with zfs to file
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:05:15 -0400 Edward Ned Harvey sola...@nedharvey.com wrote: ## Create Full snapshot and send it zfs send sourc...@uniquesnapname | ssh somehost 'zfs receive -F targe...@uniquesnapname' this is what I want to do. However I want a recursive backup from the root pool. From the solaris dox I udnerstand I have to do this line: # zfs send -Rv rp...@0908 | zfs receive -Fd backup/server/rp...@0908 I'm not quite sure about the -Fd option of receive Is this correct? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] incremental backup with zfs to file
FULL backup to a file zfs snapshot -r rp...@0908 zfs send -Rv rp...@0908 /net/remote/rpool/snaps/rpool.0908 INCREMENTAL backup to a file zfs snapshot -i rp...@0908 rp...@090822 zfs send -Rv rp...@090822 /net/remote/rpool/snaps/rpool.090822 As I understand the latter gives a file with changes between 0908 and 090822. Is this correct? How do I restore those files? I know how to recreate the root pool and how to restore the first one (.../snaps/rpool.0908) But what is the exact zfs syntax to restore the second file on top of the first one, containing the differences between the two? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] incremental backup with zfs to file
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:15:37 +0200 joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote: dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote: FULL backup to a file zfs snapshot -r rp...@0908 zfs send -Rv rp...@0908 /net/remote/rpool/snaps/rpool.0908 INCREMENTAL backup to a file zfs snapshot -i rp...@0908 rp...@090822 zfs send -Rv rp...@090822 /net/remote/rpool/snaps/rpool.090822 As I understand the latter gives a file with changes between 0908 and 090822. Is this correct? What do you understand by incremental backup? I do not want to process the first zfs send option everytime I make a backup of my root pool. It simply takes too long and too much space. I do, however, want to be able to restore my root pool in case of a disastre, as good and recent as possible. If you like to be able to restore single files, I recommend you to use star for the incrementals. I have no need for restoring single files. I use star / rsync for this already. I want to be able to restore my root pool in case of disk failure. So, I can always do a zfs send of the whole root, but I thought it might be possible to do this onece, followed by incremental differences. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] incremental backup with zfs to file
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:54:07 PDT Ross myxi...@googlemail.com wrote: If you really want to store a backup, create another ZFS filesystem somewhere and do a send/receive into it. Please don't try to dump zfs send to a file and store the results. If this is true than WHY does SUN advice on creating a zfs send to a file somewhere? ZFS Root Pool Recovery from the ZFS Troubleshooting Guide clearly mentions the creation of a -file- : http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide#ZFS_Root_Pool_Recovery -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] changing SATA ports
I've a new MB (tyhe same as before butthis one works..) and I want to change the way my SATA drives were connected. I had a ZFS boot mirror conncted to SATA3 and 4 and I wat those drives to be on SATA1 and 2 now. Question: will ZFS see this and boot the system OK or will I have to take some precautions beforehand? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool causing boot to hang
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:43:11 -0400 Mark Johnson mark.john...@sun.com wrote: One thing that could be related is that I was running a scrub when I had powered off the system. The scrub started up again after I had imported the pool. Anyone know if this is a known problem? I knwo people running a scrub often have problems after shutting down during the scrub. I have learned to HALT the scrub before going offline. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] feature proposal
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:34:53 -0700 Roman V Shaposhnik r...@sun.com wrote: On the read-write front: wouldn't it be cool to be able to snapshot things by: $ mkdir .zfs/snapshot/snap-name I've followed this thread but I fail to see the advantages of this. I guess I miss something here. Can you explain to me why the above would be better (nice to have) then zfs create whate...@now? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] feature proposal
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:38:16 +1000 Tristan Ball tristan.b...@leica-microsystems.com wrote: Because it means you can create zfs snapshots from a non solaris/non local client... Like a linux nfs client, or a windows cifs client. So if I want a snapshot of i.e. rpool/export/home/dick I can do a zfs snapshot rpool/export/home/dick, but what is the exact syntax for the same snapshot using this other method? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2009.06 rel + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] USF drive on S10u7
What is the best way to attach an USB harddisk to Solaris 10u7? I know some program is running to auto detect such a device (have forgotten the name, because I do almost all work on OSOL (hal). do I use that program or disable it an manualy attach the drive to the system? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 05/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USF drive on S10u7
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:03:14 -0600 cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote: The Solaris 10 volume management service is volfs. #svcs -a | grep vol has told me that ;-) If the auto-mounting doesn't occur, you can disable volfs and mount it manually. I don't want the automounting to occur, so I diabled volfs. I then did a rmformat to learn the device name, followed by a zpool create archive /dev/rdsk/devicename All running nicely. Thanks for the advice. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 05/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] sharenfs question
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:26:06 -0600 Mark Shellenbaum mark.shellenb...@sun.com wrote: I would suggest you open a bug on this. http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/ Done. Bugzilla – Bug 10294 Submitted -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 05/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Root Pool Recovery (from the FAQ)
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:14:03 -0400 Oscar del Rio del...@mie.utoronto.ca wrote: dick hoogendijk wrote: r...@westmark:/# share -...@store/snaps /store/snaps sec=sys,rw=arwen,root=arwen arwen# zfs send -Rv rp...@0906 arwen# /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906 zsh: permission denied: /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906 try sharing with the @ network syntax. See man share_nfs r...@192.168.xx.xx/32,ro...@192.168.xx.xx/32 Does not work! The root part is to blame for that. This rule does work: r...@192.168.xx.xx/32,root=arwen I have no idea why root=arwen has to be specified as a name, while the nodename can be a @ form. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 05/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] sharenfs question
# zfs create store/snaps # zfs set sharenfs='rw=arwen,root=arwen' store/snaps # share -...@store/snaps /store/snaps sec=sys,rw=arwen,root=arwen arwen# zfs send -Rv rp...@0906 /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906 zsh: permission denied: /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906 *** BOTH systems have NFSMAPID DOMAIN=nagual.nl set in the *** file /etc/default/nfs The NFS docs mention that the rw option can be a node (like arwen). But as you can see I get no access when I set rw=arwen. And yet arwen is known! This rule works: #zfs set sharenfs='root=arwen' store/snaps The snapshots are send from arwen to the remote machine and get the root:root privileges. So that,s OK. This rule does NOT work: # zfs set sharenfs='rw=arwen,root=arwen' store/snaps I get a permission denied. Apparently rw=arwen is nog reckognized. Is something wrong in the syntax the way ZFS uses sharenfs? Or have I misread the manual of share_nfs? What can be wrong is the line zfs set sharenfs='rw=arwen,root=arwen' store/snaps -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS Root Pool Recovery (from the FAQ)
Hi, I followed the faq on this, but get erros I can't understand. As I do want to make backups I really hope someone can tell me what's wrong. == [ what I did ] [my remote system] westmark# zfs create store/snaps westmark# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT store 108K 8.24G19K /store store/snaps18K 8.24G18K /store/snaps [share to local system] westmark# zfs set sharenfs='rw=192.168.11.22,root=root' store/snaps # share -...@rpool/snaps /rpool/snaps sec=sys,rw=192.168.11.22,root=root # Create a recursive snapshot of the root pool. [my local system] arwen# zfs snapshot -r rp...@0906 Send the entire recursive snapshot: # zfs send -Rv rp...@0906 /net/192.168.11.22/rpool/snaps/rpool.0906 And then I get this permission denied so I MUST have done something wrong. Can anybody point me at my error(s)? arwen# zfs send -Rv rp...@0906 arwen# /net/192.168.11.22/store/snaps/rpool.0906 zsh: permission denied: /net/192.168.11.22/store/snaps/rpool.0906 arwen# -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Root Pool Recovery (from the FAQ)
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:55:02 +0200 dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote: [share to local system] westmark# zfs set sharenfs=on store/snaps I left out the options and changed the /store/snaps directory permissions to 777. Now the snapshot can be send from the host but it gets u:g permssions like nobody:nobody. Is this bad? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] The importance of ECC RAM for ZFS
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Rich Teer rich.t...@rite-group.com wrote: Given that data integrity is presumably important in every non-gaming computing use, I don't understand why people even consider not using ECC RAM all the time. The hardware cost delta is a red herring: I live in Holland and it is not easy to find motherboards that (a) truly support ECC ram and (b) are (Open)Solaris compatible. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] The importance of ECC RAM for ZFS
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:44:36 -0400 Kyle McDonald kmcdon...@egenera.com wrote: ... then it seems like a shame (or a waste?) not to equally protect the data both before it's given to ZFS for writing, and after ZFS reads it back and returns it to you. But that was not the question. The question was: [quote] My question is: is there any technical reason, in ZFS's design, that makes it particularly important for ZFS to require ECC RAM? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Root Pool Recovery (from the FAQ)
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:00:30 -0600 cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote: Reproducing this will be difficult in my environment since our domain info is automatically setup... Hey, no sweat ;-) I only asked because I don't want to do the send blah again. but then again, computers don't get tired. I would suggest fixing the nobody problem because you might have other NFS-related problems accessing your files. Right. I have set the domain name in /etc/default/nfs on all machines of my local network. So I guess that's OK now. Remains the question what this line should actualy read: #zfs set sharenfs='rw=local-system,root=local-system' store/snaps rw=local-system becomes arwen that's obvious, but how about the root part. I run zfs send ... as root on the local machine (do I have to ??) and on the remote machine the /store/snaps has uid:gid root:root The backup being OK is important so I appreciate your help. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Root Pool Recovery (from the FAQ)
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:36:52 +0200 dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote: Thank you for your support 'till now. One final question:.. Alas, it's not a final qustion. It still does not work. I have no idea what else I could have forgotten. This is what I have on arwen (local) and westmark (remote): r...@westmark:/# share -...@store/snaps /store/snaps sec=sys,rw=arwen,root=arwen arwen# zfs send -Rv rp...@0906 /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906 zsh: permission denied: /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906 *** BOTH systems have NFSMAPID DOMAIN=nagual.nl set in the *** file /etc/default/nfs NFS services on both systems: arwen# svcs -a | grep nfs -- local disabled 20:02:06 svc:/network/nfs/client:default online 20:02:24 svc:/network/nfs/cbd:default online 20:02:24 svc:/network/nfs/mapid:default online 20:02:24 svc:/network/nfs/status:default online 20:02:25 svc:/network/nfs/nlockmgr:default online 20:02:27 svc:/network/nfs/server:default online 20:02:27 svc:/network/nfs/rquota:default arwen# r...@westmark:~# svcs -a | grep nfs -- remote online 20:01:25 svc:/network/nfs/mapid:default online 20:01:25 svc:/network/nfs/status:default online 20:01:25 svc:/network/nfs/nlockmgr:default online 20:01:27 svc:/network/nfs/server:default online 20:01:27 svc:/network/nfs/client:default online 20:01:27 svc:/network/nfs/cbd:default online 20:01:28 svc:/network/nfs/rquota:default Where do I look next? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:00:06 -0700 Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net wrote: No offense, but you trusted 10TB of important data, running in OpenSolaris from inside Virtualbox (not stable) on top of Windows XP (arguably not stable, especially for production) on probably consumer grade hardware with unknown support for any of the above products? Running this kind of setup absolutely can give you NO garanties at all. Virtualisation, OSOL/zfs on WinXP. It's nice to play with and see it working but would I TRUST precious data to it? No way! -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Another user looses his pool (10TB) in this case and 40 days work
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:48:40 PDT Ross no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: As far as I can see, the ZFS Administrator Guide is sorely lacking in any warning that you are risking data loss if you run on consumer grade hardware. And yet, ZFS is not only for NON-consumer grade hardware is it? the fact that many, many people run normal consumer hardware does not rule them out fro ZFS, does it? The best filesystem ever, the end of all other filesystems would be nothing more than a dream if that was true. Furthermore, much so-called consumer hardware is very good these days. My guess is ZFS should work quite reliably on that hardware. (i.e. non ECC memory should work fine!) / mirroring is a -must- ! -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2010.02 B118 + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Why is Solaris 10 ZFS performance so terrible?
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 13:03:52 -0500 (CDT) Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: On Sat, 4 Jul 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote: Did you try to use highly performant software like star? No, because I don't want to tarnish your software's stellar reputation. I am focusing on Solaris 10 bugs today. Blunt. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Increase size of ZFS mirror
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:14:52 PDT Ben no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: If I detach c5d1s0, add a 1TB drive, attach that, wait for it to resilver, then detach c5d0s0 and add another 1TB drive and attach that to the zpool, will that up the storage of the pool? That will do the trick perfectly. I just did the same last week ;-) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Turn off the time slider on some zpools
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:38:18 -0500 Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote: How to turn off the timeslider snapshots on certain file systems? http://wikis.sun.com/display/OpenSolarisInfo/How+to+Manage+the+Automatic+ZFS+Snapshot+Service -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] recovering fs's
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:42:23 +0100 Matt Harrison iwasinnamuk...@genestate.com wrote: She's now desperate to get it back as she's realised there some important work stuff hidden away in there. Without snapshots you're lost. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to destroy a pool by id?
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:56:52 +1000 (EST) Andre van Eyssen an...@purplecow.org wrote: On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Cindy Swearingen wrote: I wish we had a zpool destroy option like this: # zpool destroy -really_dead tank2 Cindy, The moment we implemented such a thing, there would be a rash of requests saying: a) I just destroyed my pool with -really_dead - how can I get my data back??! b) I was able to recover my data from -really_dead - can we have -ultra-nuke please? Following your logic there shouldn't have existed a rm -f * option too. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best controller card for 8 SATA drives ?
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:35:50 PDT Simon Breden no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: If anyone can throw some light on these topics, I would be pleased to hear from you. Thanks a lot. I follow this thread with much interest. Curious to see what'll come out of it. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best controller card for 8 SATA drives ?
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:07:49 PDT roland no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: just a side-question: I folthis thread with much interest. what are these * for ? why is followed turned into fol* on this board? The text of my original message was: On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:35:50 PDT Simon Breden no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: If anyone can throw some light on these topics, I would be pleased to hear from you. Thanks a lot. I follow this thread with much interest. Curious to see what'll come out of it. Does the change occur again? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mobo SATA migration to AOC-SAT2-MV8 SATA card
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:42:43 -0700 Jeff Bonwick jeff.bonw...@sun.com wrote: Yep, right again. That is, if the boot drives are not one of those.. ;-) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:51:12 +0200 Thommy M. thommy.m.malmst...@gmail.com wrote: IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was faster with compression ON as it didn't have to wait for so much data from the disks and that the CPU was fast at unpacking data. But sure, it uses more CPU (and probably memory). IF at all, it certainly should not be the DEFAULT. Compression is a choice, nothing more. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ata - sata quustion
casper@sun.com wrote: I boot my OpenSolaris 2009.06 system off ONE ata drive. I want to change that to a mirrored boot from two SATA drives. Is it possible to FIRST make a mirror of the existing ata drive PLUS one new sata drive and after resilvering, remove the ata drive and replace it with another (second) SATA one? Yes, that's what I did. Make sure that the sata drive is at least as big as the ata drive; make sure you make the appropriate Solaris FDISK partition and don't use an EFI label (can't boot those). I'm always not very confident with solaris format. I love the creation of an EFI labeled ZFS disk. But alas, that's not possible here cause it has to boot. So, what steps exactly do I take with format: how do I see the exact sieze of the new disk? Do I slice it up (s1, s2) or do I only need a s0 slice? Please give some advice on this? It's not everyday I put in new disks. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE +http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 05/09 ZFS+ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ata - sata quustion
I boot my OpenSolaris 2009.06 system off ONE ata drive. I want to change that to a mirrored boot from two SATA drives. Is it possible to FIRST make a mirror of the existing ata drive PLUS one new sata drive and after resilvering, remove the ata drive and replace it with another (second) SATA one? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ata - sata quustion
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:52:37 +0200 casper@sun.com wrote: make sure you make the appropriate Solaris FDISK partition and don't use an EFI label (can't boot those). Thank you Casper (and James too). This EFI label is a nice reminder. Installing grub is second nature ;-) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs send/rcv between nevada and solaris10
Can I do a zfs send filesystem from Solaris-10 into a file.zfs to a machine running OpenSolaris-2009.06, store it there and later do a zfs receive TO the solaris-10 machine from this file.zfs (onto the OSOl machine? I ask because I'm not sure if the zfs rpool versions will get in the way. S10 has v10 and Opensolaris is on v14. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:24:35 +0900 Bogdan M. Maryniuk bogdan.maryn...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone add StormOS to the distrowatch, please? If so, than you may add OSUNIX too. It seems like a nice new project, not BeneLix has joined the community -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / opensolaris sharing the same ROOT pool + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Zfs and b114 version
Sean Sprague wrote: There appears to be a minor glitch in /etc/driver_aliases where a spurious line for qlc has appeared in /etc/driver_aliases, but I have it installed and running. What's a spurious line (I'm dutch) and how did you solve it? Delete the (qlc) line? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE +http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 05/09 ZFS+ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive
If I wanted to backup a server with non-global zones (all on zfs filesystems) with zfs send I guess I don't have to halt the zones first, because I create snapshots to send from. Is that right? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / opensolaris sharing the same ROOT pool + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
