I have created a zvol. My client computer (windows) has the volume connected
fine.
But when I resize the zvol using:
zfs set volsize=20G pool/volumes/v1
.. it disconnects the client. Is this by design?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Hi,
uname -a
SunOS ns1a 5.11 snv_94 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-280R
sol-nv-B94-sparc-dvd.iso
The upgrade I tried was called osol-0811-95.iso but that would not allow to
do anything.
# df
/ (/dev/dsk/c1t0d0s0 ):50209260 blocks 3689703 files
/devices (/devices
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Ross wrote:
Huh? Now I'm confused, I thought b95 was just the latest build of
OpenSolaris, I didn't realise that OpenSolaris 2008.05 was different, I
thought it was just an older, more stable build
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the detailed reply, and the work behind the scenes filing the CRs.
I've bookmarked both, and will keep a keen eye on them for status changes.
As Miles put it, I'll have to put these dumps into storage for possible future
use.
I do dearly hope that I'll be able to recover
0n Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:12AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
Summary: Solaris Express Community Edition (SXCE) is like the OpenSolaris
of old; OpenSolaris .xx is apparently Sun's intended future direction
for Solaris. Based on what I've heard, I've not tried the latter. If I
Haven't a clue, but I've just gotten around to installing windows on this box
to test and I can confirm that hot plug works just fine in windows.
Drives appear and dissappear in device manager the second I unplug the
hardware. Any drive, either controller. So far I've done a couple of dozen
You could always try FreeBSD :)
--Tim
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Haven't a clue, but I've just gotten around to installing windows on this
box to test and I can confirm that hot plug works just fine in windows.
Drives appear and dissappear in device
Oh god no, I'm already learning three new operating systems, now is not a good
time to add a fourth.
Ross-- Windows admin now working with Ubuntu, OpenSolaris and ESX
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:07:31 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]: Re: [zfs-discuss] FW: Supermicro
0n Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:12AM -0700, Rich
Teer wrote:
Summary: Solaris Express Community Edition
(SXCE) is like the OpenSolaris
of old; OpenSolaris .xx is apparently Sun's
intended future direction
for Solaris. Based on what I've heard, I've not
tried the latter. If I
I'm not sure why you want to separate out all these filesystems on a root disk
these days? The reason I recall needing to do it over a decade ago, was
because disks were so small and perhaps you couldn't FIT /opt onto the same
disk with /usr. So you needed to be able to say /usr is on this
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:07:31AM -0500, Tim wrote:
You could always try FreeBSD :)
Unfortunately for me, Windows doesn't support ZFS... right now it's
looking a whole load more stable.
Nope: FreeBSD doesn't have proper power management either.
florin
--
Bruce Schneier expects the
Hi,
I thought that this question must have been answered already, but I have
not found any explanations. I'm sorry in advance if this is redundant, but:
Why exactly doesn't ZFS let me detach a device from a degraded mirror?
haggis:~# zpool status
pool: rmirror
state: DEGRADED
status: One or
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 02:14:02PM -0700, Eric Schrock wrote:
The fact that it's DEGRADED and not FAULTED indicates that it thinks the
DTL (dirty time logs) for the two sides of the mirrors overlap in some
way, so detaching it would result in loss of data. In the process of
doing this, it
Matthias,
that does not answer my question.
The question is: Why can't I decide that I consciously want to destroy the (two
way)
mirror (and, yes, do away with any redundancy).
Nils
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing
On Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 00:05:17 CEST, Nils Goroll wrote:
Matthias,
that does not answer my question.
The question is: Why can't I decide that I consciously want to destroy the
(two way)
mirror (and, yes, do away with any redundancy).
Hi,
this pool does not have any
I've got an OpenSolaris system rooted on a SCSI disk at /dev/dsk/c4t1d0s0. I
would like to reconfigure my VM so that this is on c4t0d0s0. Unfortunately
OpenSolaris panics on boot when I do this. It seems that vfs_mountroot is
trying to mount the root pool at its old device path (/[EMAIL
I asked a while back if there was any utility function to evaluate a ZFS
ACL, I didn't get much of a response and was unable to find anything, so
decided to implement my own C code.
It appears the acl_get() function is a convenient way to read the ACL;
however, I don't see an efficient way to
Paul B. Henson wrote:
I asked a while back if there was any utility function to evaluate a ZFS
ACL, I didn't get much of a response and was unable to find anything, so
decided to implement my own C code.
It appears the acl_get() function is a convenient way to read the ACL;
however, I don't
Is the acl_t intentionally designed to be opaque?
Yes, its meant to be opaque.
The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future.
Will old versions be supported? For example, if ADM treats it as
opaque and archives the current format, after an
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future.
[...]
of the ACL, but they aren't documented interfaces, such as acl_data()
which will return you the pointer to the array of ace_t's and acl_cnt()
that will return you the
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Paul B. Henson wrote:
Ah, thanks for the pointer. Reviewing the libsec code, I see there is also
acl_type()
Looks like the acl_type_t enum isn't in the public headers either though.
But presumably that's not likely to change...
--
Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 |
Joe Blount wrote:
Is the acl_t intentionally designed to be opaque?
Yes, its meant to be opaque.
The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future.
Will old versions be supported? For example, if ADM
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/adm/ treats it
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future.
[...]
of the ACL, but they aren't documented interfaces, such as acl_data()
which will return you the pointer to the array of ace_t's and acl_cnt()
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Paul B. Henson wrote:
Are the libsec undocumented interfaces likely to remain the same when the
acl_t structure changes? They will still require adding the prototypes to
my code so the compiler knows what to make of them, but less chance of
breakage is good.
Hi all, especially Matthias,
I am very sorry for having bothered you with this stupid question, I am
embarrassed by the fact that I did not realize it's not a mirror. The
fact that I named it rmirror definitely added confusion on my side.
Apologies in particular for not having taken Mathias'
25 matches
Mail list logo
