Hi,
As a related issue to this (specifically CR 6884728) - any ideas how I should
go about removing the old BE? When I attempt to run ludelete I get the
following:
$ lustatus
Boot Environment Is Active ActiveCanCopy
Name Complete NowOn
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:55:57AM -0700, Ben Middleton wrote:
As a related issue to this (specifically CR 6884728) - any ideas how
I should go about removing the old BE?
I haven'd tried this on U8, but maybe the following hack I did on
sxce_125 to be able to go back to older BEs will
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Peter wrote:
I can remove the dataset from the zone config and remove the
zpool from the zone. But I am having trouble getting the zpool
to mount again on the global zone. It imports and exports fine
but will not let me change the mount point stating that it is
part of
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:40:12PM +0800, C. Bergström wrote:
So use Nexenta?
Got data you care about?
Verify extensively before you jump to that ship.. :)
So you're saying Nexenta have been known to drop bits on
the floor, unprovoked? Inquiring minds...
--
Eugen* Leitl a
+ dev=`echo $dev | sed 's/mirror.*/mirror/'`
Thanks for the suggestion Kurt. However, I'm not running a mirror on that pool
- so am guessing this won't help in my case.
I'll try and pick my way through the lulib script if I get any time.
Ben
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:40:12PM +0800, C. Bergström wrote:
So use Nexenta?
Got data you care about?
Verify extensively before you jump to that ship.. :)
So you're saying Nexenta have been known to drop bits on
the floor, unprovoked? Inquiring minds...
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:55:57AM -0700, Ben Middleton wrote:
Hi,
$ ludelete 10_05-09
System has findroot enabled GRUB
Checking if last BE on any disk...
ERROR: cannot mount '/.alt.10_05-09/var': directory is not empty
ERROR: cannot mount mount point /.alt.10_05-09/var device
On Wed, Oct 28 at 13:40, C. Bergström wrote:
Tim Cook wrote:
PS: Not having enough engineers to support a growing and paying
customer base is a *good* problem to have. The opposite is much, much
worse.
So use Nexenta?
Got data you care about?
Verify extensively before you jump
Hi all,
Does zfs/solaris provide a easy way to clone at file level? I.e clone a large
vmdk?
Regards, jeff
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
2009/10/28 Eric D. Mudama edmud...@bounceswoosh.org
On Wed, Oct 28 at 13:40, C. Bergström wrote:
Tim Cook wrote:
PS: Not having enough engineers to support a growing and paying
customer base is a *good* problem to have. The opposite is much, much
worse.
So use Nexenta?
Got
that did the trick thanks !
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
With the web redesign, how does one get to zfs-discuss via the
opensolaris.org website?
Sorry for the ot question, but I'm becoming desperate after clicking
circular links for the better part of the last hour :(
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Jacob Ritorto wrote:
With the web redesign, how does one get to zfs-discuss via the
opensolaris.org website?
Sorry for the ot question, but I'm becoming desperate after
clicking circular links for the better part of the last hour :(
You can get the web pages to load? All I get are
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Kyle McDonald kmcdon...@egenera.comwrote:
Jacob Ritorto wrote:
With the web redesign, how does one get to zfs-discuss via the
opensolaris.org website?
Sorry for the ot question, but I'm becoming desperate after clicking
circular links for the better
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
Yes, this may not make business sense for Sun-as-structured, but
someone will figure out how to scratch that itch because it's real for
a LOT of small businesses. They want that low cost entry into a
business-grade NAS without having to build it
On 10/28/09 10:18 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
If Nexenta was too expensive, there's nothing Sun will ever offer that
will fit your price profile. Home electronics is not their business
model and never will be.
True, but this was discussed that on a different thread some time
ago. Sun's prices on X86s
Ben Middleton wrote:
I'm just looking for a clean way to remove the old BE, and then remove the old
snapshot without interfering with Live Upgrade from working in the future.
Remove the right line from /etc/lutab
Remove the ICF.number and INODE.number where number is the same as
the line
I don't think so. But, you can clone at the ZFS level, and then just use the
vmdk(s) that you need. As long as you don't muck about with the other stuff in
the clone, the space usage should be the same.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Hi Jeremy,
I had a loosely similar problem with my 2009.06 box. In my case (which may not
be yours), working with support we found a bug that was causing my pool to
hang. I also got erroneous errors when I did a scrub ( 3 x 5 disk raidz). I am
using the same LSI controller. A sure fire way to
On Wed, October 28, 2009 11:18, Tim Cook wrote:
Either they don't like you, or you don't read your emails :)
It's now hub.opensolaris.org for the main page.
The forums can be found at:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/index.jspa?categoryID=1
Although they appear to be having technical
On Wed, October 28, 2009 11:24, Frank Middleton wrote:
However, you are certainly correct that Sun's business model isn't
aimed at retail, although one wonders about the size of the market
for robust SOHO/Home file/media servers that no one seems to be
addressing right now (well, Apple,
C. Bergström wrote:
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:40:12PM +0800, C. Bergström wrote:
So use Nexenta?
Got data you care about?
Verify extensively before you jump to that ship.. :)
So you're saying Nexenta have been known to drop bits on
the floor,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:27:50PM -0400, David Magda wrote:
The problem is that many of these units use 'embedded' processors, and
(Open)Solaris does not readily run on many of them (e.g., PowerPC- and
ARM-based SoCs). Though AFAIK, ReadyNAS actually runs (ran?) on SPARC
(Leon), but used
David Magda wrote:
On Wed, October 28, 2009 11:24, Frank Middleton wrote:
However, you are certainly correct that Sun's business model isn't
aimed at retail, although one wonders about the size of the market
for robust SOHO/Home file/media servers that no one seems to be
addressing right now
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, David Magda wrote:
Perhaps as Intel and AMD build processors more suited to embedded /
light-weight systems, Solaris and ZFS may be used in more situations.
There's also FreeBSD, which also has ZFS and has been scaling up its
support for embedded platforms (MIPS, ARM,
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28 at 13:40, C. Bergström wrote:
Tim Cook wrote:
PS: Not having enough engineers to support a growing and paying
customer base is a *good* problem to have. The opposite is much,
much
worse.
So use Nexenta?
Got data you care about?
Verify
On Oct 26, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Can you use the command below and send me the output, please?
Thanks,
Cindy
# mdb -k
::stacks -m zfs
Ok, it did it again. I replaced the drive and it's currently
resilvering (13.66% done, 135h33m to go it says) and the
Does anyone use the ZFS virus scan feature?
If so, do you have an opinion you can share?
-- richard
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
TO CONCLUDE:
Ok, it seems that I have misjudged the speed of zfs send, and I remember
wrongly. This is because of the large amounts of data I transfered, and it felt
like it took forever. But now I clocked and 239GB is transfered in about one
hour (from 5 disc raidz1 onto a single disc),
I'm not doing anything yet; I just wondered if ZFS provides any methods to
do file level cloning instead of complete file systems. Basically I want a
zero-size-increase copy of a file. A while ago BTRFS developers added this
feature to the fs by doing a specialized ioctl call. Maybe this isn't
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Jeffry Molanus wrote:
I'm not doing anything yet; I just wondered if ZFS provides any methods to
do file level cloning instead of complete file systems. Basically I want a
zero-size-increase copy of a file. A while ago BTRFS developers added this
feature to the fs by doing
On Oct 16, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote:
My guess would be that this is due to fragmentation during some
time when the filesystem might have been close to full, but it is
still pretty terrible numbers even with 0.5M files in the
structure. And while this is very bad I would
32 matches
Mail list logo
