Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup complete rpool structure and data to tape
* Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com) wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Arjun YK Trying to understand how to backup mirrored zfs boot pool 'rpool' to tape, and restore it back if in case the disks are lost. Backup would be done with an enterprise tool like tsm, legato etc. Backup/restore of bootable rpool to tape with a 3rd party application like legato etc is kind of difficult. Because if you need to do a bare metal restore, how are you going to do it? The root of the problem is the fact that you need an OS with legato in order to restore the OS. It's a If you're talking about Solaris 11 Express, you could create your own liveCD using the Distribution Constructor[1] and include the backup software on the cd image. You'll have to customize the Distribution Constructor to install the backup software (presumably via an SVR4 package[2]) but that's not too difficult. Once you've created the image, you're good to go forevermore (unless you need to update the backup software on the image, in which case if you keep your Distribution Constructor manifests around should be a simple edit to just point at the newer backup software package).. If you're talking about S10, then that's a tougher nut to crack. Cheers, -- Glenn [1] - http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19963-01/html/820-6564/ [2] - http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19963-01/html/820-6564/addpkg.html ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to rename rpool. Is that recommended ?
* Arjun YK (arju...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi, Let me add another query. I would assume it would be perfectly ok to choose any name for root pool, instead of 'rpool', during the OS install. Please suggest otherwise. While there is nothing special about the name 'rpool' (thus you *could* change it) none of the Installers allow you to specify the name of your 'root pool' during installation. Cheers, Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to create a checkpoint?
* Peter Taps (ptr...@yahoo.com) wrote: Thank you all for your help. Looks like beadm is the utility I was looking for. When I run beadm list, it gives me the complete list and indicates which one is currently active. It doesn't tell me which one is the default boot. Can I assume that whatever is active is also the default? As outlined in beadm(1M): beadm list [-a | -ds] [-H] [beName] Lists information about the existing boot environment named beName, or lists information for all boot environ- ments if beName is not provided. The Active field indi- cates whether the boot environment is active now, represented by N; active on reboot, represented by R; or SunOS 5.11 Last change: 21 Jul 20103 System Administration Commands beadm(1M) both, represented by NR. Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] hardware going bad
* Harry Putnam (rea...@newsguy.com) wrote: Toby Thain t...@telegraphics.com.au writes: On 27/10/10 4:21 PM, Krunal Desai wrote: I believe he meant a memory stress test, i.e. booting with a memtest86+ CD and seeing if it passed. Correct. The POST tests are not adequate. Got it. Thank you. Short of doing such a test, I have evidence already that machine will predictably shutdown after 15 to 20 minutes of uptime. It seems there ought to be something, some kind of evidence and clues if I only knew how to look for them, in the logs. Is there not some semi standard kind of keywords to grep for that would indicate some clue as to the problem? If it's a thermal problem, then no there wouldn't be. Thermal shutdown is handled by the BIOS iirc and thus there isn't any notification to the host OS. Certainly not on commodity PC hardware at any rate. -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Unexpected ZFS space consumption
* JR Dalrymple (j...@jrssite.com) wrote: I'm pretty new to ZFS and OpenSolaris as a whole. I am an experienced storage administrator, however my storage equipment has typically been NetApp or EMC branded. I administer NetApp FAS2000 and FAS3000 series boxes to host a VMware only virtual infrastructure so I am versed on a pretty high level at storage provisioning for a virtual environment. My problem is unexpected disk usage on deduplicated datasets holding little more than VMDKs. I experimented with deduplication on ZFS and compared it to deduplication on NetApp and found basically identical returns on a mix of backup data and user data. I was pretty excited to put some VMDKs of my own on to a system of my own. I have been disappointed with the actual results however :( Upon building VMs on this storage I found the data to consume an as expected OS only amount of disk space. As time went on the VMDKs filled out to consume their entire allocated disk space. I was hoping I could recover the lost physical disk space by using sdelete on the guests to zero out unused space on the disks, however this didn't happen as per du or df on the storage host. After zeroing unused disk space I was really hoping that the VMDKs would only consume the amount of disk actually filled by the guest as they did when the VMs were fresh. I have properly aligned VMDKs so I don't think that the problem lies there. I'm not sure what information to offer that might be helpful except the following (nfs0 is the dataset I'm working with primarily): jrdal...@yac-stor1:~$ uname -a SunOS yac-stor1 5.11 snv_134 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris jrdal...@yac-stor1:~$ zpool list NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT rpool 540G 228G 312G42% 1.26x ONLINE - jrdal...@yac-stor1:~$ zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool329G 238G 88.5K /rpool rpool/ROOT 7.97G 238G19K legacy rpool/ROOT/opensolaris 8.41M 238G 2.85G / rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-143.5M 238G 3.88G / rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-27.92G 238G 5.52G / rpool/dump 2.00G 238G 2.00G - rpool/export1.03G 238G23K /export rpool/export/home 1.03G 238G23K /export/home rpool/export/home/jrdalrym 1.03G 238G 1.03G /export/home/jrdalrym rpool/iscsi 103G 238G21K /rpool/iscsi rpool/iscsi/iscsi0 103G 301G 40.5G - rpool/nfs0 153G 87.3G 153G /rpool/nfs0 rpool/nfs1 49.6G 238G 40.5G /rpool/nfs1 rpool/nfs2 9.99G 50.0G 9.94G /rpool/nfs2 rpool/swap 2.00G 240G 100M - jrdal...@yac-stor1:~$ zfs get all rpool/nfs0 NAMEPROPERTY VALUE SOURCE rpool/nfs0 type filesystem - rpool/nfs0 creation Wed Aug 25 20:28 2010 - rpool/nfs0 used 153G- rpool/nfs0 available 87.3G - rpool/nfs0 referenced 153G- rpool/nfs0 compressratio 1.00x - rpool/nfs0 mounted yes - rpool/nfs0 quota 240Glocal rpool/nfs0 reservation nonedefault rpool/nfs0 recordsize 128Kdefault rpool/nfs0 mountpoint /rpool/nfs0 default rpool/nfs0 sharenfs ro...@192.168.10.0/24 local rpool/nfs0 checksum on default rpool/nfs0 compression off default rpool/nfs0 atime on default rpool/nfs0 devices on default rpool/nfs0 exec on default rpool/nfs0 setuid on default rpool/nfs0 readonly off default rpool/nfs0 zoned off default rpool/nfs0 snapdir hidden default rpool/nfs0 aclmode groupmask default rpool/nfs0 aclinherit restricted default rpool/nfs0 canmount on default rpool/nfs0 shareiscsi off default rpool/nfs0 xattr on default rpool/nfs0 copies 1 default rpool/nfs0 version 4 - rpool/nfs0 utf8only off - rpool/nfs0 normalization none- rpool/nfs0 casesensitivity sensitive - rpool/nfs0 vscan off default rpool/nfs0 nbmand off default rpool/nfs0 sharesmb off default rpool/nfs0 refquota nonedefault rpool/nfs0 refreservation nonedefault rpool/nfs0 primarycache all
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirroring USB Drive with Laptop for Backup purposes
* Edward Ned Harvey (solar...@nedharvey.com) wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Matt Keenan
Just wondering whether mirroring a USB drive with main laptop disk for
backup purposes is recommended or not.
Plan would be to connect the USB drive, once or twice a week, let it
resilver, and then disconnect again. Connecting USB drive 24/7 would
AFAIK have performance issues for the Laptop.
MMmmm... If it works, sounds good. But I don't think it'll work as
expected, for a number of reasons, outlined below.
It used to work for James Gosling.
http://blogs.sun.com/jag/entry/solaris_and_os_x
[snip]
This would have the added benefit of the USB drive being bootable.
By default, AFAIK, that's not correct. When you mirror rpool to
another device, by default the 2nd device is not bootable, because
it's just got an rpool in there. No boot loader.
That's true, but easily fixed (just like for any other mirrored pool
configuration).
installgrub -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/{disk}
Even if you do this mirror idea, which I believe will be slower and
less reliable than zfs send | zfs receive you still haven't gained
anything as compared to the zfs send | zfs receive procedure, which
is known to work reliable with optimal performance.
How about ease-of-use, all you have to do is plug in the usb disk and
zfs will 'do the right thing'. You don't have to remember to run zfs
send | zfs receive, or bother with figuring out what to send/recv etc
etc etc.
Cheers,
--
Glenn
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Cores vs. Speed?
* Brian (broco...@vt.edu) wrote: I am Starting to put together a home NAS server that will have the following roles: (1) Store TV recordings from SageTV over either iSCSI or CIFS. Up to 4 or 5 HD streams at a time. These will be streamed live to the NAS box during recording. (2) Playback TV (could be stream being recorded, could be others) to 3 or more extenders (3) Hold a music repository (4) Hold backups from windows machines, mac (time machine), linux. (5) Be an iSCSI target for several different Virtual Boxes. Function 4 will use compression and deduplication. Function 5 will use deduplication. I plan to start with 5 1.5 TB drives in a raidz2 configuration and 2 mirrored boot drives. I have been reading these forums off and on for about 6 months trying to figure out how to best piece together this system. I am first trying to select the CPU. I am leaning towards AMD because of ECC support and power consumption. I can't comment on most of your question, but I will point you at: http://blogs.sun.com/mhaywood/entry/powernow_for_solaris I *think* the cpu's you're looking at won't be an issue but just something to be aware of when looking at AMD kit (especially if you want to manage the processor speed). Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Solaris installation Exiting (caught signal 11 ) and reboot crashes
* Richard Elling (richard.ell...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi Pradeep, This is the ZFS forum. You might have better luck on the caiman-discuss forum which is where the folks who work on the installers hang out. Except, that's not where the people who work on the legacy Solaris 10 installers hang out. To engage those folks, you should open a support ticket. -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Planed ZFS-Features - Is there a List or something else
* R.G. Keen (k...@geofex.com) wrote: I didn't see remove a simple device anywhere in there. Is it: too hard to even contemplate doing, or too silly a thing to do to even consider letting that happen or too stupid a question to even consider or too easy and straightforward to do the procedure I see recommended (export the whole pool, destroy the pool, remove the device, remake the pool, then reimport the pool) to even bother with? You missed: Too hard to do correctly with current resource levels and other higher priority work. As always, volunteers I'm sure are welcome. :-) Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Planed ZFS-Features - Is there a List or something else
* Neil Perrin (neil.per...@sun.com) wrote: On 12/09/09 13:52, Glenn Lagasse wrote: * R.G. Keen (k...@geofex.com) wrote: I didn't see remove a simple device anywhere in there. Is it: too hard to even contemplate doing, or too silly a thing to do to even consider letting that happen or too stupid a question to even consider or too easy and straightforward to do the procedure I see recommended (export the whole pool, destroy the pool, remove the device, remake the pool, then reimport the pool) to even bother with? You missed: Too hard to do correctly with current resource levels and other higher priority work. As always, volunteers I'm sure are welcome. :-) This gives the impression that development is not actively working on it. This is not true. As has been said often it is a difficult problem True. I apologize for the misleading nature of my comment. I should have pointed out that I don't work on the ZFS project but was relating what I believed the possible answer could be based upon past list postings of the subject. and has been actively worked on for a few months now. I don't think we are prepared to give a date as to when it will be delivered though. Cool! -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which directories must be part of rpool?
* David Abrahams (d...@boostpro.com) wrote: on Fri Sep 25 2009, Cindy Swearingen Cindy.Swearingen-AT-Sun.COM wrote: Hi David, All system-related components should remain in the root pool, such as the components needed for booting and running the OS. Yes, of course. But which *are* those? If you have datasets like /export/home or other non-system-related datasets in the root pool, then feel free to move them out. Well, for example, surely /opt can be moved? Don't be so sure. Moving OS components out of the root pool is not tested by us and I've heard of one example recently of breakage when usr and var were moved to a non-root RAIDZ pool. It would be cheaper and easier to buy another disk to mirror your root pool then it would be to take the time to figure out what could move out and then possibly deal with an unbootable system. Buy another disk and we'll all sleep better. Easy for you to say. There's no room left in the machine for another disk. The question you're asking can't easily be answered. Sun doesn't test configs like that. If you really want to do this, you'll pretty much have to 'try it and see what breaks'. And you get to keep both pieces if anything breaks. There's very little you can safely move in my experience. /export certainly. Anything else, not really (though ymmv). I tried to create a seperate zfs dataset for /usr/local. That worked some of the time, but it also screwed up my system a time or two during image-updates/package installs. On my 2010.02/123 system I see: bin Symlink to /usr/bin boot/ dev/ devices/ etc/ export/ Safe to move, not tied to the 'root' system kernel/ lib/ media/ mnt/ net/ opt/ platform/ proc/ rmdisk/ root/ Could probably move root's homedir rpool/ sbin/ system/ tmp/ usr/ var/ Other than /export, everything else is considered 'part of the root system'. Thus part of the root pool. Really, if you can't add a mirror for your root pool, then make backups of your root pool (left as an exercise to the reader) and store the non-system specific bits (/export) on you're raidz2 pool. Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which directories must be part of rpool?
* David Magda (dma...@ee.ryerson.ca) wrote: On Sep 25, 2009, at 16:39, Glenn Lagasse wrote: There's very little you can safely move in my experience. /export certainly. Anything else, not really (though ymmv). I tried to create a seperate zfs dataset for /usr/local. That worked some of the time, but it also screwed up my system a time or two during image-updates/package installs. I'd be very surprised (disappointed?) if /usr/local couldn't be detached from the rpool. Given that in many cases it's an NFS mount, I'm curious to know why it would need to be part of the rpool. If it is a 'dependency' I would consider that a bug. It can be detached, however one issue I ran in to was packages which installed into /usr/local caused problems when those packages were upgraded. Essentially what occurred was that /usr/local was created on the root pool and upon reboot caused the filesystem service to go into maintenance because it couldn't mount the zfs /usr/local dataset on top of the filled /usr/local root pool location. I didn't have time to investigate into it fully. At that point, spinning /usr/local off into it's own zfs dataset just didn't seem worth the hassle. Others mileage may vary. -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Fed up with ZFS causing data loss
* Rob Terhaar (rob...@robbyt.net) wrote: I'm sure this has been discussed in the past. But its very hard to understand, or even patch incredibly advanced software such as ZFS without a deep understanding of the internals. It's also very hard for the primary ZFS developers to satisfy everyone's itch :-) It will take quite a while before anyone can start understanding a file system which was developed behind closed doors for nearly a decade, and then released into opensource land via tarballs thrown over the wall. Only until recently the source has become more available to normal humans via projects such as indiana. I don't think you've got your facts straight. OpenSolaris was launched in June 2005. ZFS was integrated October 31st, 2005 after being in development (of a sort) from October 31st 2001[1]. It hasn't been developed behind closed doors for nearly a decade. Four years at most and it was available for all to see (in much better form than 'tarballs thrown over the wall') LONG before Indiana was even a gleam in Ian's eyes. Saying if you don't like it, patch it is an ignorant cop-out, and a troll response to people's problems with software. And people seemingly expecting that the ZFS team (or any technology team working on OpenSolaris) has infinite cycles to solve everyone's itches is equally ignorant imo. OpenSolaris (the project) is meant to be a community project. As in allowing contributions from entities outside of sun.com. So, saying 'patches welcomed' is mostly an appropriate response (depending on how it's presented) because they are in fact welcome. That's sort of how opensource works (at least in my experience). If the primary developers aren't 'scratching your itch' then you (or someone you can get to do the work for you) can fix your own problems and contribute them back to the community as a whole where everyone wins. Cheers, -- Glenn 1 - http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/zfs_the_last_word_in ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation
* Shannon Fiume (shannon.fi...@sun.com) wrote: Hi, I just installed 2009.06 and found that compression isn't enabled by default when filesystems are created. Does is make sense to have an RFE open for this? (I'll open one tonight if need be.) We keep telling people to turn on compression. Are there any situations where turning on compression doesn't make sense, like rpool/swap? what about rpool/dump? That would be enhancement request #86. http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=86 Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 24x1TB ZFS system. Best practices for OS install without wasting space.
Hi Ray, * Ray Van Dolson (rvandol...@esri.com) wrote: So we have a 24x1TB system (from Silicon Mechanics). It's using an LSI SAS card so we don't have any hardware RAID virtual drive type options. Solaris 10 05/09 I was hoping we could set up one large zpool (RAIDZ) from the installer and set up a small zfs filesystem off of that for the OS leaving the rest of the zpool for our data. However, it sounds like this isn't possible... and that a ZFS root install must be done on a mirrored set of slices or disks. So it looks like either way we might be losing out on minimum 2TB (two disks). Obviously we could throw in a couple smaller drives internally, or elsewhere... but are there any other options here? Currently, no. ZFS can only boot from single or mirrord zpools. Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS: unreliable for professional usage?
* Orvar Korvar (knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com) wrote: Seagate7, You are not using ZFS correctly. You have misunderstood how it is used. If you dont follow the manual (which you havent) then any filesystem will cause problems and corruption, even ZFS or ntfs or FAT32, etc. You must use ZFS correctly. Start by reading the manual. For ZFS to be able to repair errors, you must use two drives or more. This is clearly written in the manual. If you only use one drive then ZFS can not repair errors. If you use one drive, then ZFS can only detect errors, but not repair errors. This is also clearly written in the manual. Or, you can set copies 1 on your zfs filesystems. This at least protects you in cases of data corruption on a single drive but not if the entire drive goes belly up. Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Is scrubbing safe in 101b? (OpenSolaris 2008.11)
* David Dyer-Bennet (d...@dd-b.net) wrote: On Fri, January 23, 2009 09:52, casper@sun.com wrote: Which leaves me wondering, how safe is running a scrub? Scrub is one of the things that made ZFS so attractive to me, and my automatic reaction when I first hook up the data disks during a recovery is run a scrub!. If your memory is bad, anything can happen. A scrub can rewrite bad data; but it can be the case that the disk is fine but the memory is bad. Then, if the data is replicated it can be copied and rewritten; it is then possible to write incorrect data (and if they need to recompute the checksum, then oops) The memory was ECC, so it *should* have mostly detected problems early enough to avoid writing bad data. And so far nothing has been detected as bad in the pool during light use. But I haven't yet run a scrub since fixing the memory, so I have no idea what horrors may be lurking in wait. The pool is two mirror vdevs, and then I have two backups on external hard drives, and then I have two sets of optical disks of the photos, one of them off-site (I'd lose several months of photos if I had to fall back to the optical disks, I'm a bit behind there). So I'm not yet in great fear of actually losing anything, and have very little risk of actually losing a LOT. But what I'm wondering is, are there known bugs in 101b that make scrubbing inadvisable with that code? I'd love to *find out* what horrors may be lurking. There's nothing in the release notes for 2008.11 (based on 101b) about issues running scrub. I've been using 101b for some time now and haven't seen or heard of any issues running scrub. There's always bugs. But I'm pretty certain there isn't a known 'zfs scrub is inadvisable under any and all conditions' bug laying about. I've certainly not heard of such a thing (and it would be pretty big news for 2008.11 if true). Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs boot / root in Nevada build 101
* Peter Baer Galvin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This seems like a n00b question but I'm stuck. Nevada build 101. Doing fresh install (in vmware fusion). I don't see any way to select zfs as the root file system. Looks to me like UFS is the default, but I don't see any option box to allow that to be changed to zfs. What am I missing?! Thanks. You need to use the text mode installer, that's the only installer that has support for ZFS root installations in SXCE. Cheers, Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to remove any references to a zpool that's gone
Hey Mark, * Mark J Musante ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi Glenn, Where is it hanging? Could you provide a stack trace? It's possible that it's just a bug and not a configuration issue. I'll have to recreate the situation (won't be able to do so until next week). I had a zpool status (and subsequently a zpool destroy) command that was hung, subsequent zfs commands also would hang. I couldn't even do a zpool export (which someone privately told me should work). What worked was to reboot (which I actually had to power the machine off physically, init and reboot did nothing) and then I could export the 'broken' pool. So I'm not sure where the bug is, but this shouldn't be too hard to replicate and I believe running zpool status with this type of setup will cause a hang and then you're stuck until you power off the machine and reboot to do the export. I'll report back next week once I replicate this. Thanks, Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Help! Possible with b80 and newest ZFS?
* Orvar Korvar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I dont think the mother board is on the HCL. But everything worked fine in b90. I realize I havent provided all necessary info. Here is more info. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=69654tstart=0 The thing is, Ive upgraded ZFS to the newest version with b95. And b95 is very unstable, internet dies suddenly, movie playback kicks me out to login screen, wine dies upon startup, etc. So now I dont know what to do. I want an older build, 80-90 and access to my ZFS which is the latest version from b95. Impossible equation? Ok, so you upgraded your ZFS pool to the new version introduced in build 95 (I think that's when it was introduced, regardless). And now you want to roll back because you're having problems with build 95. I think you're only option is to save your data and reinstall an earlier build. There is no mechanism (that I know of, though I'm not a ZFS expert) to 'downgrade' a pool. When you upgrade the version of a ZFS pool, you are then required to run the build that has support for that pool version. Why did you upgrade the pool in the first place out of curiousity? It would have run just fine in build 95 (and later). Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
