Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
So for Linux, I think that you will also need to figure out an
indirect-map incantation which works for its own broken automounter.
Make sure that you read all available documentation for the Linux
automounter so you know which parts don't actually work.
Oh
Hi Rick,
OK, thanks for clarifying.
As, it seems there's different devices with (1) mixed speed NICs and (2) mixed
category cabling being used in your setup, I will simplify things by saying
that if you want to get much faster speeds then I think you'll need to ensure
you (1) use at least
Hello eschrock,
I'm a newbe on solaris, would you tell me how I can get/install build 89 of
nevada?
Fabrice.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:35 PM, Tim Wood wrote:
Hi,
I have a pool /zfs01 with two sub file systems /zfs01/rep1 and /
zfs01/rep2. I used [i]zfs share[/i] to make all of these mountable
over NFS, but clients have to mount either rep1 or rep2
individually. If I try to mount /zfs01 it shows
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Jonathan Loran wrote:
Oh contraire Bob. I'm not going to boost Linux, but in this department,
they've tried to do it right. If you use Linux autofs V4 or higher, you
can use Sun style maps (except there's no direct maps in V4. Need V5
for direct maps). For our home
When we installed the Marvell driver patch 125205-07 on our X4500 a few months
ago and it started crashing, Sun support just told us to back out that patch.
The system has been stable since then.
We are still running Solaris 10 11/06 on that system. Is there an advantage to
using 125205-07
I have a test system with 132 (small) ZFS pools[*], as part of our
work to validate a new ZFS-based fileserver environment. In testing,
it appears that we can produce situations that will run the kernel out
of memory, or at least out of some resource such that things start
complaining 'bash:
A silly question: Why are you using 132 ZFS pools as opposed to a
single ZFS pool with 132 ZFS filesystems?
--Bill
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 01:53:32PM -0400, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
I have a test system with 132 (small) ZFS pools[*], as part of our
work to validate a new ZFS-based fileserver
Indeed, things should be simpler with fewer (generally one) pool.
That said, I suspect I know the reason for the particular problem
you're seeing: we currently do a bit too much vdev-level caching.
Each vdev can have up to 10MB of cache. With 132 pools, even if
each pool is just a single iSCSI
| Still, I'm curious -- why lots of pools? Administration would be
| simpler with a single pool containing many filesystems.
The short answer is that it is politically and administratively easier
to use (at least) one pool per storage-buying group in our environment.
This got discussed in more
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 15:02 +0200, Ulrich Graef wrote:
Hi,
ZFS won't boot on my machine.
I discovered, that the lu manpages are there, but not
the new binaries.
So I tried to set up ZFS boot manually:
zpool create -f Root c0t1d0s0
lucreate -n nv88_zfs -A nv88 finally on ZFS
11 matches
Mail list logo
