On 09/07/10 23:26, Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote:
Hi,
After upgrade from snv_138 to snv_142 or snv_145 I'm unable to boot the system.
Here is what I get.
Any idea why it's not able to import rpool?
I saw this issue also on older builds on a different machines.
This sounds (based on the presence
dick hoogendijk wrote:
true. Furthermore, much so-called consumer hardware is very good these
days. My guess is ZFS should work quite reliably on that hardware.
(i.e. non ECC memory should work fine!) / mirroring is a -must- !
No, ECC memory is a must too. ZFS checksumming verifies and
Hi,
David Magda wrote:
On Jul 19, 2009, at 20:13, Gavin Maltby wrote:
No, ECC memory is a must too. ZFS checksumming verifies and corrects
data read back from a disk, but once it is read from disk it is stashed
in memory for your application to use - without ECC you erode
confidence
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
I'm doing a little testing and I hit a strange point. Here is a zvol
(clone)
pool1/volclone type volume -
pool1/volclone origin pool1/v...@diff1 -
pool1/volclone reservation none default
Hi,
The manpage says
Specifically, used = usedbychildren + usedbydataset +
usedbyrefreservation +, usedbysnapshots. These proper-
ties are only available for datasets created on zpool
version 13 pools.
.. and I now realize that created at v13 is the
Hi,
James Litchfield wrote:
known issue? I've seen this 5 times over the past few days. I think
these were, for the most part BFUs on top of B107. x86.
Yes, Dan Price reported this happening post the fix to 6802281.
Not sure there is a CR number as yet; Steve has a proposed
fix which you
Richard Elling wrote:
Chris Gerhard wrote:
My home server running snv_94 is tipping with the same assertion when
someone list a particular file:
Failed assertions indicate software bugs. Please file one.
We learn something new every day!
Gavin
On 02/21/08 16:31, Rich Teer wrote:
What is the current preferred method for backing up ZFS data pools,
preferably using free ($0.00) software, and assuming that access to
individual files (a la ufsbackup/ufsrestore) is required?
For home use I am making very successful use of zfs incremental
Hi,
On 09/29/07 22:00, Gavin Maltby wrote:
Hi,
Our zfs nfs build server running snv_73 (pool created back before
zfs integrated to ON) paniced I guess from zfs the first time
and now panics on attempted boot every time as below. Is this
a known issue and, more importantly (2TB of data
On 10/01/07 17:01, Richard Elling wrote:
T3 comment below...
[cut]
A scrub is only 20% complete, but has found no errors thus far. I check
the T3 pair and no complaints there either - I did reboot them just for
luck (last reboot was 2 years ago, apparently!).
Living on the edge...
The T3
Hi,
Our zfs nfs build server running snv_73 (pool created back before
zfs integrated to ON) paniced I guess from zfs the first time
and now panics on attempted boot every time as below. Is this
a known issue and, more importantly (2TB of data in the pool),
any suggestions on how to recover
On 04/24/07 01:37, Richard Elling wrote:
Leon Koll wrote:
My guess that Yaniv assumes that 8 pools with 62.5 million files each
have significantly less chances to be corrupted/cause the data loss
than 1 pool with 500 million files in it.
Do you agree with this?
I do not agree with this
Hi,
Is it expected that if I have filesystem tank/foo and tank/foo/bar
(mounted under /tank) then in order to be able to browse via
/net down into tank/foo/bar I need to have group/other permissions
on /tank/foo open?
# zfs create tank/foo
# zfs create tank/foo/bar
# chown gavinm /tank/foo
On 01/30/07 17:59, Neal Pollack wrote:
I am assuming that one single command;
# zfs set sharenfs=ro bigpool
would share /export as a read-only NFS point?
It will share /export as read-only. The property will also
be inherited by all filesystem below export, so they
too will be shared
Hi,
My desktop paniced last night during a zfs receive operation. This
is a dual opteron system running snv_47 and bfu'd to DEBUG project bits that
are in sync with the onnv gate as of two days ago. The project bits
are for Opteron FMA and don't appear at all active in the panic.
I'll log a
On 09/08/06 15:20, Mark Maybee wrote:
Gavin,
Please file a bug on this.
I filed 6468748. Attach the core now.
Cheers
Gavin
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hi
Probbaly been reported a while back, but 'zfs list -o' does not
list the rather useful (and obvious) 'name' property, and nor does the manpage
at a quick read. snv_42.
# zfs list -o
missing argument for 'o' option
usage:
list [-rH] [-o property[,property]...] [-t type[,type]...]
17 matches
Mail list logo
