Hi,
I had a plan to set up a zfs pool with different raid levels but I ran
into an issue based on some testing I've done in a VM. I have 3x 750
GB hard drives and 2x 320 GB hard drives available, and I want to set
up a RAIDZ for the 750 GB and mirror for the 320 GB and add it all to
the same
Tim wrote:
**pci or pci-x. Yes, you might see *SOME* loss in speed from a pci
interface, but let's be honest, there aren't a whole lot of users on
this list that have the infrastructure to use greater than 100MB/sec who
are asking this sort of question. A PCI bus should have no
I'm quite new to ZFS. It is so very easy to create new filesystems
using zfs create zpool/fs that sometimes I doubt what to do: create a
directory (like on ufs) or do a zfs create..
Can somebody give some advise on -when- to use a normal directory
and -when- it is better to create a
Weird. I have no idea how you could remove that file (beside destroying the
entire filesystem)...
One other thing I noticed:
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
rpool ONLINE 0 0 8
raidz1ONLINE 0 0 8
c0t7d0 ONLINE
On 07 June, 2008 - Fu Leow sent me these 2,0K bytes:
Hi,
I had a plan to set up a zfs pool with different raid levels but I ran
into an issue based on some testing I've done in a VM. I have 3x 750
GB hard drives and 2x 320 GB hard drives available, and I want to set
up a RAIDZ for the 750
On 07 June, 2008 - Dick Hoogendijk sent me these 0,6K bytes:
I'm quite new to ZFS. It is so very easy to create new filesystems
using zfs create zpool/fs that sometimes I doubt what to do: create a
directory (like on ufs) or do a zfs create..
Can somebody give some advise on -when- to use a
c1t5d0 was part of a mirror but with c1t4d0 removed it now appears as
a single drive. Is there a way to recover from this by recreating the
mirror with c1t4d0?
Detaching a drive from a two-way mirror effectively breaks it up and
turns it into a single drive. That's normal. Just attach it back
Hi Folks,
I'm trying to backup my /export folder to an USB disk by zfs send/receive.
But zfs receive try to mount the dataset to a mountpoint which is already
mounted on the existing zfs system, and failed. see below:
1) zfs list
# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER
The problem with that argument is that 10.000 users on one vxfs or UFS
filesystem is no problem at all, be it /var/mail or home directories.
You don't even need a fast server for that. 10.000 zfs file systems is
a problem.
So, if it makes you happier, substitute mail with home directories.
Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
I'm quite new to ZFS. It is so very easy to create new filesystems
using zfs create zpool/fs that sometimes I doubt what to do: create a
directory (like on ufs) or do a zfs create..
Can somebody give some advise on -when- to use a normal directory
and -when- it is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uwe,
Please see pages 55-80 of the ZFS Admin Guide, here:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/
Basically, the process is to upgrade from nv81 to nv90 by using the
standard upgrade feature. Then, use lucreate to migrate your UFS root
file system to a
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Peter Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... very big snip ...
(Although I have to say that, in a previous job, scrapping user quotas
entirely
not only resulted in happier users, much less work for the helpdesk, and -
paradoxically - largely eliminated systems
For the cifs side of the house, I think it would be in Sun's best interest
to work with a third party vendor like NTP software. The quota
functionality they provide is far more robust than anything I expect we'll
ever see come directly with zfs. And rightly so... it's what they
specialize in.
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c1t5d0 was part of a mirror but with c1t4d0 removed it now appears as
a single drive. Is there a way to recover from this by recreating the
mirror with c1t4d0?
Detaching a drive from a two-way mirror effectively breaks it
Hello Bill,
Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 12:37:38 AM, you wrote:
BS I'm pretty sure that this bug is fixed in Solaris 10U5, patch
BS 127127-11 and 127128-11 (note: 6462690 sd driver should set
BS SYNC_NV bit when issuing SYNCHRONIZE CACHE to SBC-2 devices).
BS However, a test system with new 6140
On 07 June, 2008 - Fu Leow sent me these 1,1K bytes:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c1t5d0 was part of a mirror but with c1t4d0 removed it now appears as
a single drive. Is there a way to recover from this by recreating the
mirror with c1t4d0?
16 matches
Mail list logo
