Michael Hale wrote:
Around 9:45 this morning, our mailserver (SunOS 5.11 snv_91 i86pc i386
i86pc) rebooted.
[...]
dumping to /dev/zvol/dsk/rootpool/dump, offset 65536, content: kernel
Is there a way to tell if ZFS caused the kernel panic? I notice that
it says imapd: in the middle of
Hi ZFS gurus -- I have a v240 with solaris10 u2 release and ZFs - could you
please tell me if by applying the latest patch bundle of update 2 -- I will get
the all the ZFS patches installed as well ?
Thanks much for your support
~Balu
This message posted from opensolaris.org
S10U2 has zfs version=1. Any patches are just bug fixes (I'm not sure if
there are any). If your intention is to get to a newer, later, greater ZFS,
you'll need to upgrade. S10U5 has, for example, version=4. Differences in
the versions of zfs can be found at
Manyam wrote:
Hi ZFS gurus -- I have a v240 with solaris10 u2 release and ZFs - could
you please tell me if by applying the latest patch bundle of update 2 -- I
will get the all the ZFS patches installed as well ?
It is possible to patch your way up to the U5 kernel and related
Dear ALL,
IHAC who would like to use Sun Fire X4500 to be the NFS server for the
backend services, and would like to see the potential performance gain
comparing to their existing systems. However the outputs of the I/O
stress test with iozone show the mixed results as follows:
* The
Frank Cusack wrote:
On July 14, 2008 9:54:43 PM -0700 Frank Cusack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On July 14, 2008 7:49:58 PM -0500 Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like they're talking more about traditional hardware RAID
but is this also true for ZFS? Right now
On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Michael Hale wrote:
Around 9:45 this morning, our mailserver (SunOS 5.11 snv_91 i86pc
i386 i86pc) rebooted.
Looking at /var/crash/HOSTNAME, I saw the unix.0 and vmcore0 files.
Loading them up in MDB, I get the following:
::panicinfo
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Matthew Huang wrote:
comparing to their existing systems. However the outputs of the I/O stress
test with iozone show the mixed results as follows:
* The read performance sharply degrades (almost down to 1/20, i.e
from 2,000,000 down to 100,000) when the file sizes
Michael Hale wrote:
What's the proper way to file a bug report for opensolaris? Is there
a web form and a way to upload the core file?
http://bugs.opensolaris.org
-- richard
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
It is possible to patch your way up to the U5 kernel
and related
patches, which should give you all the latest ZFS
bits (available in
Solaris anyways). I have done this from U3, but I
believe coming from U2
wouldn't be much different. I assume that the
required patches are in
the
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
Manyam wrote:
Hi ZFS gurus -- I have a v240 with solaris10 u2 release and ZFs - could
you please tell me if by applying the latest patch bundle of update 2 -- I
will get the all the ZFS patches installed as well ?
It is possible to patch your way up
I've run into an odd problem which I lovingly refer to as a black hole
directory.
On a Thumper used for mail stores we've found find's take an exceptionally long
time to run. There are directories that have as many as 400,000 files, which I
immediately considered the culprit. However,
On Jul 14, 2008, at 20:49, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Any time you see even a single statement which is incorrect, it is
best to ignore that forum poster entirely and if no one corrects
him, then ignore the entire forum.
Yes, because each and every one of us must correct inaccuracies on the
Hi Guys,
Can I use MPXIO/STMS with ZFS to do multipathing amount pools/devices ?
Any issues, any specific version of STMS to avoid/use ?
Thanks
Arif
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Arif Khan wrote:
Hi Guys,
Can I use MPXIO/STMS with ZFS to do multipathing amount pools/devices ?
Any issues, any specific version of STMS to avoid/use ?
By STMS I assume that you are talking about MPXIO. Solaris 10 comes
with a quite usable MPXIO and it does work
Arif Khan wrote:
Hi Guys,
Can I use MPXIO/STMS with ZFS to do multipathing amount pools/devices ?
Yes. It just works (tm).
Any issues, any specific version of STMS to avoid/use ?
One issue which I've come across recently is that stmsboot is not
behaving itself properly when it does its
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Arif Khan wrote:
Hi Guys,
Can I use MPXIO/STMS with ZFS to do multipathing amount pools/devices ?
Any issues, any specific version of STMS to avoid/use ?
By STMS I assume that you are talking about MPXIO. Solaris 10 comes
with a quite usable
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, James C. McPherson wrote:
...
MPXIO is quite ugly and rough around the edges (at least compared with
ZFS) but it works.
Just curious - what do you see as the ugliness in MPxIO? I don't
have an agenda to push, I'd just like to get feedback from you
on what you see as
Hi Bob,
thanks for the quick response. Comments inline below
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, James C. McPherson wrote:
...
MPXIO is quite ugly and rough around the edges (at least compared
with ZFS) but it works.
Just curious - what do you see as the ugliness in MPxIO? I don't
On June 14, 2007 1:56:05 AM -0700 Frank Cusack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway I agree Sun should fill this hole, but the 2530 misses the mark.
I'd like to see a chassis that takes 750GB/1TB SATA drives, with SAS
host ports. And sell just the chassis, so I can skip the 100%+ drive
markup. I
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Frank Cusack wrote:
On June 14, 2007 1:56:05 AM -0700 Frank Cusack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway I agree Sun should fill this hole, but the 2530 misses the mark.
I'd like to see a chassis that takes 750GB/1TB SATA drives, with SAS
host ports. And sell just the
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, James C. McPherson wrote:
I'm fairly sure that the long device names aspect won't change.
I don't understand what you mean by Odd requirement to update /etc/vfstab
- when we turn on mpxio the device paths change, so any fs that's not
ZFS will require repointing, as it
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, James C. McPherson wrote:
I'm fairly sure that the long device names aspect won't change.
I don't understand what you mean by Odd requirement to update /etc/vfstab
- when we turn on mpxio the device paths change, so any fs that's not
ZFS will
On July 16, 2008 9:40:03 PM -0700 Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
http://richteer.blogspot.com/2006/05/sun-storage-product-i-would-like-to.html
I remember that! The 2.5 disks don't really count as low cost, but
still your other post beats me. :P
Let's say it was a team effort. :)
-frank
I got overzealous with snapshot creation. Every 5 mins is a bad idea.
Way too many.
What's the easiest way to delete the empty ones?
zfs list takes FOREVER
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi there,
Yes 5 minutes is too often.
I would, if it is easy and you have enough room, and don't want any of
the snapshots, create another temp zfs file system and copy your data
there and destroy the current zfs file system. Then recreate it and
copy the data back. I don't know if there
26 matches
Mail list logo
