Freddie Cash wrote:
You definitely want to do the ZFS bits from within FreeBSD.
Why not using ZFS in OpenSolaris? At least it has most stable/tested
implementation and also the newest one if needed?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Brandon High wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Vladimir Kotal vladimir.ko...@sun.com
mailto:vladimir.ko...@sun.com wrote:
Could you be more specific about the problems with 88SE9123,
especially with SATA ? I am in the process of setting up a system
with AD2SA6GPX1 HBA based on
Hi friends,
i have a problem. I have a file server which initiates large volumes with iscsi
initiator. Problem is, zfs side it shows non aviable space, but i am %100 sure
there is at least, 5 TB space. Problem is, because zfs pool shows as 0 aviable
all iscsi connection got lost and all
on 11/07/2010 14:21 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk said the following:
I'm planning on running FreeBSD in VirtualBox (with a Linux host)
and giving it raw disk access to four drives, which I plan to
configure as a
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
ZFS-FUSE is horribly unstable,
That may be true. I couldn't say.
although that's more an indication of
the stability of the storage stack on Linux.
But this, I take
From: David Magda [mailto:dma...@ee.ryerson.ca]
On Jul 10, 2010, at 14:20, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
A few companies have already backed out of zfs
as they cannot afford to go through a lawsuit.
Or, in the case of Apple, who could definitely afford a lawsuit, but
choose
to avoid
From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms]
Because VSS isn't doing anything remotely close to what WAFL is doing
when it takes snapshots.
It may not do what you want it to do, but it's still copy on write, as
evidenced by the fact that it takes instantaneous snapshots, and snapshots
don't get
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.comwrote:
From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms]
Because VSS isn't doing anything remotely close to what WAFL is doing
when it takes snapshots.
It may not do what you want it to do, but it's still copy on write, as
On Mon, July 12, 2010 10:03, Tim Cook wrote:
Everyone's SNAPSHOTS are copy on write BESIDES ZFS and WAFL's. The
filesystem itself is copy-on-write for NetApp/Oracle, which is why there
is no performance degradation when you take them.
Per Microsoft:
When a change to the original volume
Linder, Doug wrote:
Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering - how
does ZFS make money for Oracle when they don't charge for it? Do you think
it's such an important feature that it's a big factor in customers picking
Solaris over other platforms?
Yes, it
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 17:05 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Linder, Doug wrote:
Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering -
how does ZFS make money for Oracle when they don't charge for it? Do you
think it's such an important feature that it's a big factor in
Well, it is good to hear that there likely isn't a patent problem with the
SATA functionality of the card. Hopefully the filed bug will be addressed,
and support added to the AHCI driver.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Vladimir Kotal vladimir.ko...@sun.comwrote:
Brandon High wrote:
On
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Precisely.
A private license, with support and indemnification from Sun, would
shield Apple from any lawsuit from Netapp.
This sort of statement illustrates a lack of knowledge of how
indemnification and patents work. The patent holder is not
Hi,
I'm currently trying to work with a quad-bay USB drive enclosure. I've created
a raidz pool as follows:
bleon...@opensolaris:~# zpool status r5pool
pool: r5pool
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
r5poolONLINE
I'm actually only running one at a time. It is recursive / incremental (and
hundreds of GB), but it's only one at a time. Was there still problems in
2009.06 in that scenario?
Does 2008.11 have these problems? 2008.05 didn't, and I'm considering moving
back to that rather than using a
Hi Brian,
What are you trying to determine? How the pool behaves when a drive is
yanked out?
Its hard to tell how a pool will react with external USB drives. I think
it will also depend on how the system handles a device removal.
I created a similar raidz pool with non-USB devices, offlined a
Yeah, it's just that I don't think I'll be allowed to put up a dev version, but
I would probably get away with putting up 2008.11 if it doesn't have the same
problems with zfs send/recv. Does anyone know?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.comwrote:
Btw, if you want a commercially supported and maintained product, have
you looked at NexentaStor? Regardless of what happens with OpenSolaris,
we aren't going anywhere. (Full disclosure: I'm a Nexenta Systems
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 12:55 -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Garrett D'Amore
garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
Btw, if you want a commercially supported and maintained
product, have
you looked at NexentaStor? Regardless of what happens with
Garrett wrote:
I don't know about ramifications (though I suspect that a broadening
error scope would decrease ZFS' ability to isolate and work around
problematic regions on the media), but one thing I do know. If you use
FreeBSD disk encryption below ZFS, then you won't be able able to import
From this output it appears as if Solaris, via the
BIOS I presume, it looks like my BIOS thinks it
doesn't have ECC RAM, even though all the memory
modules are indeed ECC modules.
Might be time to check (1) my current BIOS settings,
even though I felt sure ECC was enabled in the BIOS
On 07/13/10 06:48 AM, BJ Quinn wrote:
Yeah, it's just that I don't think I'll be allowed to put up a dev version, but
I would probably get away with putting up 2008.11 if it doesn't have the same
problems with zfs send/recv. Does anyone know?
That would be a silly thing to do. Your
Hello all. I am new...very new to opensolaris and I am having an issue and have
no idea what is going wrong. So I have 5 drives in my machine. all 500gb. I
installed open solaris on the first drive and rebooted. . Now what I want to do
is ad a second drive so they are mirrored. How does one do
Actually my current servers are 2008.05, and I noticed the problems I was
having with 2009.06 BEFORE I put those up as the new servers, so my pools are
not too new to revert back to 2008.11, I'd actually be upgrading from 2008.05.
I do not have paid support, but it's just not going to go over
Hi John,
Follow the steps in this section:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide
Replacing/Relabeling the Root Pool Disk
If the disk is correctly labeled with an SMI label, then you can skip
down to steps 5-8 of this procedure.
Thanks,
Cindy
On 07/12/10
Hi Folks..
I have a system that was inadvertently left unmirrored for root. We were able
to add a mirror disk, resilver, and fix the corrupted files (nothing very
interesting was corrupt, whew), but zpool status -v still shows errors..
Will this self correct when we replace the degraded
Hey Kris (glad to see someone from my QCOM days!):
It should automatically clear itself when you replace the disk. Right
now you're still degraded since you don't have full redundancy.
- Garrett
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 16:10 -0700, Kris Kasner wrote:
Hi Folks..
I have a system that
On 07/13/10 11:10 AM, Kris Kasner wrote:
Hi Folks..
I have a system that was inadvertently left unmirrored for root. We
were able to add a mirror disk, resilver, and fix the corrupted files
(nothing very interesting was corrupt, whew), but zpool status -v
still shows errors..
Will this
Thanks for the reply..
I got derailed by a DBA while writing the email, I should have been more
clear - I realize that the 'DEGRADED' states should resolve after I replace the
disk, but what about the section that states:
errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files:
I'm looking to use ZFS to export ISCSI volumes to a Windows/Linux client.
Essentially, I'm looking to create two storage ZFS machines that I will export
ISCSI targets from. Then from the client side, I will enable mirrorings. The
two ZFS machines will be independent of each other. I had
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 05:05:41PM +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Linder, Doug wrote:
Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering
- how does ZFS make money for Oracle when they don't charge for it? Do
you think it's such an important feature that it's a big
I have/had Intel M25-E 32GB SSD drive as ZIL/cache device (2 GB ZIL
slice0 and the rest is cache slice1)
The SSD drive has failed and zpool is unavailable anymore.
Is there any way to import the pool/recover data, even with some latest
transactions lost?
I've tried zdb -e -bcsvL pool name but
On 07/13/10 12:26 PM, Gary Leong wrote:
I'm looking to use ZFS to export ISCSI volumes to a Windows/Linux client.
Essentially, I'm looking to create two storage ZFS machines that I will export
ISCSI targets from. Then from the client side, I will enable mirrorings. The
two ZFS machines
33 matches
Mail list logo
