Vladimir Leitenberger wrote:
Hello, Experts.
I've got a problem. I'm trying to expand my main zpool (rpool), but don't know
how to do that. (i'm 100% newbie in non-windows world)
I use Osol under Vmware on Windows.
I had a pretty small vhdd - only 12gb. Yesterday i decided to expand my
Ahh, interesting...once I get the data realatively stable in some of those
sub-folders I wil create a file system, move the data in there and setup the
snapshot for those that are relatively static...now I just need to do a load of
reading about snapshots!
Thanks again...sp much to learn.
--
Greeting All
I am using Filebench benchmark in an Interactive mode to test ZFS
performance with randomread wordload.
My Filebench setting run results are as follwos
--
filebench set $filesize=5g
filebench set
Hello Erik, first of all, thanks for quick replay.
About using later builds: Right now I'm using a snv_111b bild (osol2009.06 -
5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris). As i already said, I tried to upgrade
to a newest dev-release but I wasn't lucky with that (panic at the boot,
crushes, etc),
Hi
My pool is very simple disk partition on a workstation
abdul...@hp_hdx_16:~# zpool list
NAMESIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT
hdd19.6G 5.00G 14.6G25% ONLINE -
rpool 123G 7.82G 115G 6% ONLINE -
just testing randomread in filebench .
On Tue, Mar 2,
Thanks for reply!
This mirror is used by zones, no need to boot from it.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I see at least two differences:
1. duration 30s vs 100s (so not SAME)
2. your manual test doesn't empty the cache
Of course, it is the latter that makes all the difference.
Hope this helps,
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Mar 2010, at 08:38, Abdullah Al-Dahlawi dahl...@ieee.org wrote:
Hi Phil
Good notice , but believe me this is not the problem .
I just cut pasted the filebench config file after I rerun it with in
shorter time, the orginal one was SAME with 100 seconds.
and by the way I always enmpty the cache with zfs export import before
every run
Filebench still
For rpool, which has SMI labels and fdisk partitions, you need to
expand the size of those, and then ZFS will notice (with or withhout
autoexpand, depending on version).
--
Dan.
pgpHNYyaslcOA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
How can I do that ?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Mon, March 1, 2010 22:58, Thomas Burgess wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
Also consider that you might not want to snapshot the entire pool.
Snapshots work on the dataset, not the
We have a virtualized environment of T-Series where each host has either zones
or LDoms.
All of the virtual systems will have their own dedicated storage on ZFS (and
some may also get raw LUNs). All the SAN storage is delivered in fixed sized
33GB LUNs.
The question I have to the community
On Mon, March 1, 2010 23:04, Paul B. Henson wrote:
If users have private primary groups then you can have them run with
umask 007 or 002 and use set-gid and/or inherittable ACLs to ensure that
users can share files in specific directories. (This is one reason that
I recommend always giving
valrh...@gmail.com valrh...@gmail.com writes:
I have been using DVDs for small backups here and there for a decade
now, and have a huge pile of several hundred. They have a lot of
overlapping content, so I was thinking of feeding the entire stack
into some sort of DVD autoloader, which would
I was trying to think of a way to set compression=on at the beginning of a
jumpstart. The only idea I've come up with is to do so with a flash
archive predeployment script. Has anyone else tried this approach?
Thanks,
Chad___
zfs-discuss mailing
On Mar 2, 2010, at 7:40 AM, chad.campb...@cummins.com wrote:
I was trying to think of a way to set compression=on at the beginning of a
jumpstart. The only idea I've come up with is to do so with a flash archive
predeployment script. Has anyone else tried this approach?
It depends on how
see below...
On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Abdullah Al-Dahlawi wrote:
Greeting All
I am using Filebench benchmark in an Interactive mode to test ZFS
performance with randomread wordload.
My Filebench setting run results are as follwos
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Brian Kolaci wrote:
What is probability of corruption with ZFS in Solaris 10 U6 and up in a SAN
environment? Have people successfully recovered?
The probability of corruption in a SAN environment depends entirely
on your SAN environment. With proper design, the
I haven't been really closely following this discussion, but I might
have a solution.
A quick glance at 'man chmod(1)' will show that there is an unused bit
in the file mask, namely '7000'. This has been there for quite a long
time. I discovered it in '94 when a student accidentally set it on her
On Mar 2, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Brian Kolaci wrote:
We have a virtualized environment of T-Series where each host has either
zones or LDoms.
All of the virtual systems will have their own dedicated storage on ZFS (and
some may also get raw LUNs). All the SAN storage is delivered in fixed sized
I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08
s10x_u6wos_07b X86). I recently hit this sparse file bug when I deleted a
512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space was never freed up.
What I am asking is would there be any way to recover the space in the
filesystem
Logically it would be setuid + setgid + sticky, but it is not defined
in the man page and I don't have the ability to read through the
applicable source code. If it's not available, then I retract my
suggestion, and instead suggest that the man pages need to be updated.
:)
According to the man
Hi Richard
Are you saying that running filebench with a configuration file is different
(it flushes the cache) from running it as an interactive mode for the same
exact workload configuration
If the answer is yes , how can I make filebench behave the same while
running in NON-interactive
On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Brian Kolaci wrote:
What is probability of corruption with ZFS in Solaris 10 U6 and up in a SAN
environment? Have people successfully recovered?
The probability of corruption in a SAN environment depends entirely
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme kjeti...@linpro.nowrote:
valrh...@gmail.com valrh...@gmail.com writes:
I have been using DVDs for small backups here and there for a decade
now, and have a huge pile of several hundred. They have a lot of
overlapping content, so I was
On 2 March 2010 08:13, Fredrich Maney fredrichma...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't been really closely following this discussion, but I might
have a solution.
A quick glance at 'man chmod(1)' will show that there is an unused bit
in the file mask, namely '7000'.
Isn't that just like having
On 2 March 2010 10:35, Fredrich Maney fredrichma...@gmail.com wrote:
Logically it would be setuid + setgid + sticky, but it is not defined
in the man page and I don't have the ability to read through the
applicable source code. If it's not available, then I retract my
suggestion, and instead
On 03/02/10 08:13, Fredrich Maney wrote:
Why not do the same sort of thing and use that extra bit to flag a
file, or directory, as being an ACL only file and will negate the rest
of the mask? That accomplishes what Paul is looking for, without
breaking the existing model for those that need/wish
Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com writes:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme kjeti...@linpro.no wrote:
it would be inconvenient to make a dedup copy on harddisk or tape,
you could only do it as a ZFS filesystem or ZFS send stream. it's
better to use a generic tool like hardlink(1), and just
I strongly suggest that folks who are thinking about this examine what
NetApp does when exporting NTFS security model qtrees via NFS. It
constructs a mostly bogus set of POSIX permission info based on the ACL.
All access is enforced based on the actual ACL. Sadly for NFSv3 clients
there is no
On 02 March, 2010 - Carson Gaspar sent me these 0,5K bytes:
I strongly suggest that folks who are thinking about this examine what
NetApp does when exporting NTFS security model qtrees via NFS. It
constructs a mostly bogus set of POSIX permission info based on the ACL.
All access is
Tomas Ögren wrote:
On 02 March, 2010 - Carson Gaspar sent me these 0,5K bytes:
I strongly suggest that folks who are thinking about this examine what
NetApp does when exporting NTFS security model qtrees via NFS. It
constructs a mostly bogus set of POSIX permission info based on the ACL.
Hi!
I'm new to ZFS so this may be (or certainly is) a kind of newbie question.
I started with a small server I built from parts I had left over.
I only had 2 500GB drives and wanted to go for space. So i just created a zpool
without any option. That now looks like this.
NAME
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:10:52AM -0800, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On 03/02/10 08:13, Fredrich Maney wrote:
Why not do the same sort of thing and use that extra bit to flag a
file, or directory, as being an ACL only file and will negate the rest
of the mask? That accomplishes what Paul is
I have a system with a bunch of disks, and I¹d like to know how much faster
it would be if I had an SSD for the ZIL; however, I don¹t have the SSD and I
don¹t want to buy one right now. The reasons are complicated, but it¹s not
a cost barrier. Naturally I can¹t do the benchmark right now...
But
car...@taltos.org said:
NetApp does _not_ expose an ACL via NFSv3, just old school POSIX mode/owner/
group info. I don't know how NetApp deals with chmod, but I'm sure it's
documented.
The answer is, It depends. If the NetApp volume is NTFS-only permissions,
then chmod from the Unix/NFS
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:42:30AM -0800, Carson Gaspar wrote:
NetApp does _not_ expose an ACL via NFSv3, just old school POSIX
mode/owner/group info. I don't know how NetApp deals with chmod, but
I'm sure it's documented.
I can't get a chmod to succeed in that situation. This particular
On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I have a system with a bunch of disks, and I’d like to know how much faster
it would be if I had an SSD for the ZIL; however, I don’t have the SSD and I
don’t want to buy one right now. The reasons are complicated, but it’s not a
cost
cc == chad campbell chad.campb...@cummins.com writes:
cc I was trying to think of a way to set compression=on
cc at the beginning of a jumpstart.
are you sure grub/ofwboot/whatever can read compressed files?
pgpw4hLscprR6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Thomas W wrote:
Hi!
I'm new to ZFS so this may be (or certainly is) a kind of newbie question.
I started with a small server I built from parts I had left over.
I only had 2 500GB drives and wanted to go for space. So i just created a
zpool without any
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
no. what happens when an NFS client without ACL support mounts your
filesystem? your security is blown wide open. the filemode should
reflect the *least* level of access. if the filemode on its own allows
more access, then you've lost.
Say
On 03/02/10 12:57, Miles Nordin wrote:
cc == chad campbellchad.campb...@cummins.com writes:
cc I was trying to think of a way to set compression=on
cc at the beginning of a jumpstart.
are you sure grub/ofwboot/whatever can read compressed files?
Grub and the sparc zfs boot
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Hmmm; the lack of flexibility you talk about comes from not using the
security model sensibly -- having per-person groups is very useful in
that security model.
I have 70 odd thousand users. Why would I want to also have 70 thousand
groups with
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
While we're designing on the fly: Another possibility would be to use an
additional umask bit or two to influence the mode-bit - acl interaction.
I've think trying to continue shoving a square page into a round hole is
simply the wrong thing to do;
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Marion Hakanson wrote:
The answer is, It depends. If the NetApp volume is NTFS-only
permissions, then chmod from the Unix/NFS side doesn't work, and you can
only manipulate permissions from Windows clients.. If it's a mixed
security-style volume, chmod from the Unix/NFS
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 09:04:58PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Yes, that sounds useful. (Group modebits could be applied to all ACEs
that are neither owner@ nor everyone@ ACEs.)
That sounds an awful lot like the POSIX mask_obj, which was the
Yes. Yes. Yes. I agree with every one of your points in this message :).
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Well, I think the bit, if we must have one, belongs in the filesystem
objects that have ACLs, as opposed to processes. There may be no umask
to apply in remote access cases,
Freddie: I think you understand my intent correctly.
This is not about a perfect backup system. The point is that I have hundreds of
DVDs that I don't particularly want to sort out, but they are pretty useless
from a management standpoint in their current form. ZFS + dedup would be the
way to
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org writes:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
no. what happens when an NFS client without ACL support mounts your
filesystem? your security is blown wide open. the filemode should
reflect the *least* level of access. if the filemode on its own
Thanks... works perfect!
Currently it's resilvering. That is all too easy ;)
Thanks again,
Thomas
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi Thomas,
I see that Richard has suggested mirroring your existing pool by
attaching slices from your 1 TB disk if the sizing is right.
You mentioned file security and I think you mean protecting your data
from hardware failures. Another option is to get one more disk to
convert this
BTW, it should be relatively easy to implement aclmode=ignore and
aclmode=deny, if you like.
- $SRC/common/zfs/zfs_prop.c needs to be updated to know about the new
values of aclmode.
- $SRC/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_acl.c:zfs_acl_chmod()'s callers need to be
modified:
- in the create
So I'm in the process of building a ZFS based SAN. After toying with it at
home I've ordered up all the parts to begin my build. That's a completely
different story though.
I'm wondering what the possibilities of two-way replication are for a ZFS
storage pool.
The scenario - the ZFS SAN
Daniel Carosone wrote:
For rpool, which has SMI labels and fdisk partitions, you need to
expand the size of those, and then ZFS will notice (with or withhout
autoexpand, depending on version).
--
Dan.
I don't believe that is true for VM installations like Vladimir's,
though I certainly could
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Brian Kolaci wrote:
So if there is corruption, can it be safely isolated so as to not
affect other datasets or LDoms? Or would it be likely to take down
the whole pool?
It seems like you are asking if there could be a software bug or a
firmware/hardware bug in the SAN.
I find myself agreeing with Paul on this one. We allow people to
choose between filesystems, volume managers, password encryption
algorithims, profiles, etc. Why not allow them to pick one file
security model, another, or both?
Now, of course, the devil is in the details of implementation. Do we
On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Matt wrote:
So I'm in the process of building a ZFS based SAN. After toying with it at
home I've ordered up all the parts to begin my build. That's a completely
different story though.
I'm wondering what the possibilities of two-way replication are for a ZFS
Hi Folks,
We have put together a 25T ZFS raidz2 zpool (16x2TB 5900 RPM 32MB
Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s drives with 2x LSI SAS3081E-R SAS RAID Controllers
presenting the drives as JBOD straight thru to the backplane) with 2
hot-spares on OpenSolaris snv_133. The pool contains roughly 800
Million files
On 03/ 2/10 11:48 AM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme
kjeti...@linpro.no mailto:kjeti...@linpro.no wrote:
valrh...@gmail.com mailto:valrh...@gmail.com
valrh...@gmail.com mailto:valrh...@gmail.com writes:
I have been using DVDs for small
On Mar 1, 2010, at 12:44, Richard Elling wrote:
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
Also consider that you might not want to snapshot the entire pool.
Snapshots work on the dataset, not the pool (there is no zpool
snapshot command :-)
Wouldn't a zfs snapshot -r mypool
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
We have put together a 25T ZFS raidz2 zpool (16x2TB 5900 RPM 32MB
Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s drives with 2x LSI SAS3081E-R SAS RAID Controllers
presenting the drives as JBOD straight thru to the backplane) with 2
hot-spares on OpenSolaris snv_133. The pool
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
Hi Folks,
We have put together a 25T ZFS raidz2 zpool (16x2TB 5900 RPM 32MB
Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s drives with 2x LSI SAS3081E-R SAS RAID Controllers
presenting the drives as JBOD straight thru to the backplane) with 2
hot-spares on OpenSolaris
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:48 PM, David Magda wrote:
On Mar 1, 2010, at 12:44, Richard Elling wrote:
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
Also consider that you might not want to snapshot the entire pool.
Snapshots work on the dataset, not the pool (there is no zpool snapshot
Richard Elling wrote:
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
Hi Folks,
We have put together a 25T ZFS raidz2 zpool (16x2TB 5900 RPM 32MB
Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s drives with 2x LSI SAS3081E-R SAS RAID Controllers
presenting the drives as JBOD straight thru to the backplane) with 2
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
If no modebits were to apply to ACEs with subjects other than
owner@/group@/everyone@ (what about subjects that match the file's
owner/group but aren't owner@/gr...@?) then there'd be no way to use
modebits as a big filter for ACLs. This is why I
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
BTW, it should be relatively easy to implement aclmode=ignore and
aclmode=deny, if you like.
I looked over the code some, and from an intuitive point of view it didn't
seem like it would be that hard; thanks for the pointers.
I'm absolutely willing
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Fredrich Maney wrote:
We allow people to choose between filesystems, volume managers, password
encryption algorithims, profiles, etc. Why not allow them to pick one
file security model, another, or both?
Choice is good :).
Now, of course, the devil is in the details of
On 2-Mar-10, at 4:31 PM, valrh...@gmail.com wrote:
Freddie: I think you understand my intent correctly.
This is not about a perfect backup system. The point is that I have
hundreds of DVDs that I don't particularly want to sort out, but
they are pretty useless from a management standpoint
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
this is true for AUTH_SYS, too, sorry about the bad example.
Technically I suppose the server actually makes the determination about
access, but given it makes it based blindly on whatever the client tells
it, it seems it's really the client with
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org writes:
Good :). I am certainly not wedded to my proposal, if some other
solution is proposed that would meet my requirements, great. However,
pretty much all of the advice has boiled down to either ACL's are
broken, don't use them, or why would you want to do
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:04:52PM -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
I don't believe that is true for VM installations like Vladimir's,
though I certainly could be wrong.
I think you are :-)
Vladimir - I would say your best option is to simply back up your data
from the OpenSolaris VM, and do
so, I'm playing around with dedup, and trying to get it set up how I want, with
little impact on performance (we're using zfs primarily for storage of backups,
using rsync to copy the files from our linux servers to our opensolaris/zfs
'backupbricks)
currently running snv_133 on x86, zpool
Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:04:52PM -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
I don't believe that is true for VM installations like Vladimir's,
though I certainly could be wrong.
I think you are :-)
And you would be correct. No booting from EFI labeled disks for now,
This is meant with the sincerest of urges to help.
I have a similar situation, and pondered much the same issues. However, I'm
extremely short of time as it is. I decided that my needs would be best served
leaving the data on those backup DVDs and CDs in case I needed it. The in case
I need
Hi Cindy,
thanks for your advice. I guess this would be the better way to mirror one
drive on a physical extra drive but Richards suggetion was fitting my
current conditions better.
Because I didn't want to buy an extra disk or copy all data back and forth.
I just happened to have an extra 1TB
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
you haven't demonstrated why the current capabilities are insufficient
for your requirements. it's a bit hard to offer advice for perceived
problems other than reconsider your perception.
I think I've made it pretty clear that I want to control
Greeting Richard
After spending alomost 48 hours working on this problem, I believe I've
discovered the BUG in Filebench !!!.
I do not believe it is the change directory that you have indicated below
cause this directory is used to dump the stat data at the end of the
benchmarks, it is NOT used
77 matches
Mail list logo
