Good morning.
I am in the process of planning a system which will have 2 ZFS servers, one
on site, one off site. The on site server will be used by workstations and
servers in house, and most of that will stay in house. There will, however,
be data i want backed up somewhere else, which is where
2012-10-05 4:57, Jerry Kemp wrote:
Its been awhile, but it seems like in the past, you would power the
system down, boot from removable media, import your pool then destroy or
archive the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache, and possibly your /etc/path_to_inst
file, power down again and re-arrange your
2012-10-05 11:17, Tiernan OToole wrote:
Also, as a follow up question, but slightly unrelated, when it comes to
the ZFS Send, i could use SSH to do the send, directly to the machine...
Or i could upload the compressed, and possibly encrypted dump to the
server... Which, for resume-ability and
Thanks for that Jim!
Sounds like a plan there... One question about the storing ZFS dumps in a
file... So, the idea of storing the data in a SFTP server which has an
unknown underlying file system... Is that defiantly off limits, or can it
be done? and should i be doing a full dump or just an
2012-10-05 13:13, Tiernan OToole wrote:
Thanks for that Jim!
Sounds like a plan there... One question about the storing ZFS dumps in
a file... So, the idea of storing the data in a SFTP server which has an
unknown underlying file system... Is that defiantly off limits, or can
it be done?
Thanks again Jim. Very handy info. This is now my weekend project, so
hopefully things go well!
--Tiernan
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
2012-10-05 13:13, Tiernan OToole wrote:
Thanks for that Jim!
Sounds like a plan there... One question about the
On 10/05/12 21:36, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-10-05 11:17, Tiernan OToole wrote:
Also, as a follow up question, but slightly unrelated, when it comes to
the ZFS Send, i could use SSH to do the send, directly to the machine...
Or i could upload the compressed, and possibly encrypted dump to the
Thanks Ian. That sounds like an option also. The plan was to break up the
file systems anyway, since some i will want to be replicated remotely, and
others not as much.
--Tiernan
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
On 10/05/12 21:36, Jim Klimov wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
Well, it seems just like a peculiar effect of required vs. optional
dependencies. The loop is in the default installation. Details:
# svcprop filesystem/usr | grep scheduler
From: Neil Perrin [mailto:neil.per...@oracle.com]
In general - yes, but it really depends. Multiple synchronous writes of any
size
across multiple file systems will fan out across the log devices. That is
because there is a separate independent log chain for each file system.
Also large
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tiernan OToole
I am in the process of planning a system which will have 2 ZFS servers, one on
site, one off site. The on site server will be used by workstations and
servers
in house, and
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
I do have to suffer a slow, glitchy WAN to a remote server and rather than
send stream files, I broke the data *on the remote server* into a more
fine grained set of filesystems than I would do normally. In this case, I
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
I must be missing something - I don't see anything above that indicates any
required vs optional dependencies.
Ok, I see that now. (Thanks to the SMF FAQ).
A dependency
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
I do have to suffer a slow, glitchy WAN to a remote server and rather than
send stream files, I broke the
On 10/06/12 07:57, Edward Ned Harvey
(opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Ian Collinsi...@ianshome.com wrote:
I do have to suffer a slow,
Hi all,
I'm actually running ZFS under FreeBSD. I've a question about how many
disks I «can» have in one pool.
At this moment I'm running with one server (FreeBSD 9.0) with 4 MD1200
(Dell) meaning 48 disks. I've configure with 4 raidz2 in the pool (one on
each MD1200)
On what I understand I
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Albert Shih
I'm actually running ZFS under FreeBSD. I've a question about how many
disks I can have in one pool.
At this moment I'm running with one server (FreeBSD 9.0) with 4 MD1200
On Oct 5, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Albert Shih albert.s...@obspm.fr wrote:
Hi all,
I'm actually running ZFS under FreeBSD. I've a question about how many
disks I «can» have in one pool.
At this moment I'm running with one server (FreeBSD 9.0) with 4 MD1200
(Dell) meaning 48 disks. I've
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
I do have a lot of what would appear to be unnecessary filesystems, but
after loosing the WAN 3 days into a large transfer, a change of tactic was
required!
I've recently (last year or so) gone the other way, and have made
19 matches
Mail list logo
