Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Casper . Dik
>AMD Geodes are 32-bit only. I haven't heard any mention that they will >_ever_ be 64-bit. But, honestly, this and the Via chip aren't really >ever going to be targets for Solaris. That is, they simply aren't (any >substantial) part of the audience we're trying to reach with Solaris x86. I'm

Re: Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Joe Little
On 6/22/06, Bill Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey Joe. We're working on some ZFS changes in this area, and if you could run an experiment for us, that would be great. Just do this: echo 'zil_disable/W1' | mdb -kw We're working on some fixes to the ZIL so it won't be a bottleneck when

[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS and Virtualization

2006-06-22 Thread Nathanael Burton
> Hi experts, > > I have few issues about ZFS and virtualization: > > [b]Virtualization and performance[/b] > When filesystem traffic occurs on a zpool containing > only spindles dedicated to this zpool i/o can be > distributed evenly. When the zpool is located on a > lun sliced from a raid group

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Joe Little
I guess the only hope is to find pin-compatible Xeons that are 64bit to replace what is a large chassis with 24 slots of disks that has specific motherboard form-factor, etc. We have 6 of these things from a government grant that must be used for the stated purpose. So, yes, we can buy product, bu

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Richard Elling
Erik Trimble wrote: Dell (arrggh! Not THEM!) sells PowerEdge servers with plenty of PCI slots and RAM, and 64-bit CPUs for around $1000 now. Hell, WE sell dual-core x2100s for under $2k. I'm sure one can pick up a whitebox single-core Opteron for around $1k. That's not unreasonable to ask

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Erik Trimble
Artem Kachitchkine wrote: AMD Geodes are 32-bit only. I haven't heard any mention that they will _ever_ be 64-bit. But, honestly, this and the Via chip aren't really ever going to be targets for Solaris. That is, they simply aren't (any substantial) part of the audience we're trying to reac

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Artem Kachitchkine
AMD Geodes are 32-bit only. I haven't heard any mention that they will _ever_ be 64-bit. But, honestly, this and the Via chip aren't really ever going to be targets for Solaris. That is, they simply aren't (any substantial) part of the audience we're trying to reach with Solaris x86. Didn'

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Erik Trimble
AMD Geodes are 32-bit only. I haven't heard any mention that they will _ever_ be 64-bit. But, honestly, this and the Via chip aren't really ever going to be targets for Solaris. That is, they simply aren't (any substantial) part of the audience we're trying to reach with Solaris x86. Also, r

Re: Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 04:22:22PM -0700, Joe Little wrote: > Again, the issue is the multiple fsyncs that NFS requires, and likely > the serialization of those iscsi requests. Apparently, there is a > basic latency in iscsi that one could improve upon with FC, but we are > definitely in the all et

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: where has all my space gone? (with zfs mountroot + b38)

2006-06-22 Thread Mark Shellenbaum
James C. McPherson wrote: James C. McPherson wrote: Jeff Bonwick wrote: 6420204 root filesystem's delete queue is not running The workaround for this bug is to issue to following command... # zfs set readonly=off / This will cause the delete queue to start up and should flush your queue. Than

Re: Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Joe Little
On 6/22/06, Jeff Bonwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a test against the same iscsi targets using linux and XFS and the > NFS server implementation there gave me 1.25MB/sec writes. I was about > to throw in the towel and deem ZFS/NFS has unusable until B41 came > along and at least gave me 1.25MB

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: where has all my space gone? (with zfs mountroot + b38)

2006-06-22 Thread James C. McPherson
James C. McPherson wrote: Jeff Bonwick wrote: 6420204 root filesystem's delete queue is not running The workaround for this bug is to issue to following command... # zfs set readonly=off / This will cause the delete queue to start up and should flush your queue. Thanks for the update. James,

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Jeff Bonwick
> a test against the same iscsi targets using linux and XFS and the > NFS server implementation there gave me 1.25MB/sec writes. I was about > to throw in the towel and deem ZFS/NFS has unusable until B41 came > along and at least gave me 1.25MB/sec. That's still super slow -- is this over a 10Mb

Re: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Al Hopper
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Joe Little wrote: > On 6/22/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rich Teer wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Joe Little wrote: > > > > > > Please don't top post. > > > > > >> What if your 32bit system is just a NAS -- ZFS and NFS, nothing else? > > >> I think it

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Richard Elling
Joe Little wrote: On 6/22/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rich Teer wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Joe Little wrote: > > Please don't top post. > >> What if your 32bit system is just a NAS -- ZFS and NFS, nothing else? >> I think it would still be ideal to allow tweaking of things

Re: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Joe Little
On 6/22/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rich Teer wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Joe Little wrote: > > Please don't top post. > >> What if your 32bit system is just a NAS -- ZFS and NFS, nothing else? >> I think it would still be ideal to allow tweaking of things at runtime >> to ma

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs snapshot restarts scrubbing?

2006-06-22 Thread Mark Shellenbaum
Daniel Rock wrote: Hi, yesterday I implemented a simple hourly snapshot on my filesystems. I also regularly initiate a manual "zpool scrub" on all my pools. Usually the scrubbing will run for about 3 hours. But after enabling hourly snapshots I noticed that zfs scrub is always restarted if

Re: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Jonathan Adams
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 08:36:05PM +0200, Nicolai Johannes wrote: > To the question whether we should care about being able to write files at all: > > I am not sure whether the following access checks are done by the > file system layer, but what is with files in /dev/, named pipes and > Unix Doma

AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Nicolai Johannes
To the question whether we should care about being able to write files at all: I am not sure whether the following access checks are done by the file system layer, but what is with files in /dev/, named pipes and Unix Domain Sockets? Also for lockfiles, that may be removed by other users, writing

AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Nicolai Johannes
I am afraid, that I dislike the idea as well. You also need to record the privileges of the process (perhaps the process chose to drop and set the new privileges from time to time). It really complicates a safe and easy to verify implementation. To my mind, processes that will drop the new privi

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Neil Perrin
Yes, lockfs works. It uses the ZIL - unless it's disabled where it waits for all outstanding txgs to commit. The man page doesn't say it's specific to UFS, but does mention one specific UFS detail. Darren J Moffat wrote On 06/22/06 11:19,: Bill Sommerfeld wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:01, R

Re: [Security-discuss] Re: AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Casper . Dik
>On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 10:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> To me, a "PRIV_OBJECT_MODIFY" which is required for any file modifying >> operation would seem to be more useful as often a read-only user is >> a worthwhile thing to have; perhaps mirrored with a PRIV_OBJECT_ACCESS >> in case you want to p

Re: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:06:48AM -0700, Jonathan Adams wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:49:03PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:54:32PM +0200, Nicolai Johannes wrote: > > > Concerning the reopen problem of files created in world writable > > > directories: One may

Re: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Jonathan Adams
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:49:03PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:54:32PM +0200, Nicolai Johannes wrote: > > Concerning the reopen problem of files created in world writable > > directories: One may use the following algorithm: First compute the > > permissions of the n

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Jonathan Adams
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 07:46:57PM +0200, Roch wrote: > > As I recall, the zfs sync is, unlike UFS, synchronous. Uh, are you talking about sync(2), or lockfs -f? IIRC, lockfs -f is always synchronous. Cheers, - jonathan -- Jonathan Adams, Solaris Kernel Development ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Prabahar Jeyaram
Yep. ZFS supports the ioctl (_FIOFFS) which 'lockfs -f' issues. -- Prabahar. Darren J Moffat wrote: > Bill Sommerfeld wrote: >> On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:01, Roch wrote: >>> Is there a sync command that targets individual FS ? >> >> Yes. lockfs -f > > Does lockfs work with ZFS ? The man page

Re: [Security-discuss] Re: AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Bill Sommerfeld
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 10:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To me, a "PRIV_OBJECT_MODIFY" which is required for any file modifying > operation would seem to be more useful as often a read-only user is > a worthwhile thing to have; perhaps mirrored with a PRIV_OBJECT_ACCESS > in case you want to prevent

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Roch
As I recall, the zfs sync is, unlike UFS, synchronous. -r ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:54:32PM +0200, Nicolai Johannes wrote: > Concerning the reopen problem of files created in world writable > directories: One may use the following algorithm: First compute the > permissions of the newly created file. For every permission granted > to the user or group, c

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Jonathan Adams
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 06:19:20PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > >On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:01, Roch wrote: > >> Is there a sync command that targets individual FS ? > > > >Yes. lockfs -f > > Does lockfs work with ZFS ? The man page appears to indicate it is very > UFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Bill Sommerfeld
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:19, Darren J Moffat wrote: > > Yes. lockfs -f > > Does lockfs work with ZFS ? The man page appears to indicate it is very > UFS specific. all of lockfs does not. but, if truss is to believed, the ioctl used by lockfs -f appears to. or at least, it returns without err

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Darren J Moffat
Bill Sommerfeld wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:01, Roch wrote: Is there a sync command that targets individual FS ? Yes. lockfs -f Does lockfs work with ZFS ? The man page appears to indicate it is very UFS specific. -- Darren J Moffat ___ z

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Bill Sommerfeld
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:01, Roch wrote: > Is there a sync command that targets individual FS ? Yes. lockfs -f - Bill ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailm

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Casper . Dik
>Are VIA processor chips 64bit capable yet ? No, I don't think so. And Geode? Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS questions

2006-06-22 Thread Gregory Shaw
So, based on the below, there should be no reason why a flash-based ZFS filesystem should need to do anything special to avoid problems. That's a Good Thing. I think that using flash as the system disk will be the way to go. Using flash as read-only with a disk or memory for read-write wou

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Darren J Moffat
Rich Teer wrote: On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Joe Little wrote: Please don't top post. What if your 32bit system is just a NAS -- ZFS and NFS, nothing else? I think it would still be ideal to allow tweaking of things at runtime to make 32-bit systems more ideal. I respectfully disagree. Even on x86

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Roch
Bill Sommerfeld writes: > On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 03:55, Roch wrote: > > How about the 'deferred' option be on a leased basis with a > > deadline to revert to normal behavior; at most 24hrs at a > > time. > why? I'll trust your judgement over mine on this, so I won't press. But i

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS throttling - how does it work?

2006-06-22 Thread Roch
Robert Milkowski writes: > Hello Andrzej, > > Thursday, June 22, 2006, 11:30:23 AM, you wrote: > > AB> Hi zfs-discuss, > > AB> I have some questions about throttling on ZFS > > AB> 1) I know that throttling is activating while one sync is waiting > AB> for another. > AB> (http://blo

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Rich Teer
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Joe Little wrote: Please don't top post. > What if your 32bit system is just a NAS -- ZFS and NFS, nothing else? > I think it would still be ideal to allow tweaking of things at runtime > to make 32-bit systems more ideal. I respectfully disagree. Even on x86, 64-bits are c

[zfs-discuss] zfs snapshot restarts scrubbing?

2006-06-22 Thread Daniel Rock
Hi, yesterday I implemented a simple hourly snapshot on my filesystems. I also regularly initiate a manual "zpool scrub" on all my pools. Usually the scrubbing will run for about 3 hours. But after enabling hourly snapshots I noticed that zfs scrub is always restarted if a new snapshot is cr

Re: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Johannes Nicolai
On Thursday 22 June 2006 17:15, you wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:55:05AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Yes. It's kind of enticing. > > > > I'm not entirely clear as to the problem which it solves; I think > > I'd much rather have a user which cannot modify anything. > > The "canonica

Re: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Casper . Dik
>Another concern would be: what UID owns files created by such processes? I don't think it could be anything other than the current euid; otherwise it is too easy to create files under a different uid. >For non-basic privs we can always do things with the client's root >credential and, when crea

Re: AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Johannes Nicolai
On Thursday 22 June 2006 16:55, you wrote: > >Yes, world readable/writable files can still be accessed by dropping = > >the new privileges. One reason are library calls that need to read so= > >me public files (like things in /etc). The need to manipulate or remo= > >ve world writable files is hard

Re: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:55:05AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Yes. It's kind of enticing. > > I'm not entirely clear as to the problem which it solves; I think > I'd much rather have a user which cannot modify anything. The "canonical" example would be, I think, ssh-agent(1), although I'

Re: AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Johannes Nicolai
You are right that vi or mktemp will not longer function with this approach. On the other hand, only programs that will really know what they are doing will drop basic privileges. I do not see a reason for most applications (like vi) will do so. Imagine a process has no identity (it dropped the

Re: AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Casper . Dik
> >Yes, world readable/writable files can still be accessed by dropping = >the new privileges. One reason are library calls that need to read so= >me public files (like things in /etc). The need to manipulate or remo= >ve world writable files is harder to justify, on the other hand, worl= >d writa

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Joe Little
Well, I should weigh in hear. I have been using ZFS with an iscsi backend and a NFS front end to my clients. Until B41 (not sure what fixed this) I was getting 20KB/sec for RAIDZ and 200KB/sec for just ZFS on on large iscsi LUNs (non-RAIDZ) when I was receiving many small writes, such as untarrin

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on 32bit x86

2006-06-22 Thread Joe Little
What if your 32bit system is just a NAS -- ZFS and NFS, nothing else? I think it would still be ideal to allow tweaking of things at runtime to make 32-bit systems more ideal. On 6/21/06, Mark Maybee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yup, your probably running up against the limitations of 32-bit kern

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Bill Sommerfeld
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 03:55, Roch wrote: > How about the 'deferred' option be on a leased basis with a > deadline to revert to normal behavior; at most 24hrs at a > time. why? > Console output everytime the option is enabled. in general, no. error messages to the console should be reserved

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS throttling - how does it work?

2006-06-22 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello Andrzej, Thursday, June 22, 2006, 11:30:23 AM, you wrote: AB> Hi zfs-discuss, AB> I have some questions about throttling on ZFS AB> 1) I know that throttling is activating while one sync is waiting AB> for another. AB> (http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/roch?entry=the_dynamics_of_zfs) AB>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Multipathing and ZFS

2006-06-22 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello Craig, Wednesday, June 21, 2006, 10:16:44 PM, you wrote: CC> I have had a brief introduction to ZFS and while discussing it with some other CC> folks the question came up about use with multipathed storage. What, if any, CC> configuration or interaction does ZFS have with a multipathed sto

Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello Roch, Thursday, June 22, 2006, 9:55:41 AM, you wrote: R> How about the 'deferred' option be on a leased basis with a R> deadline to revert to normal behavior; at most 24hrs at a R> time. Console output everytime the option is enabled. I really hate when tools try to be more clever tha

Re: AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Casper . Dik
> >Concerning the reopen problem of files created in world writable dire= >ctories: >One may use the following algorithm: >First compute the permissions of the newly created file. >For every permission granted to the user or group, check whether the = >corresponding identity-privilege is set. If n

AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Nicolai Johannes
Concerning the reopen problem of files created in world writable directories: One may use the following algorithm: First compute the permissions of the newly created file. For every permission granted to the user or group, check whether the corresponding identity-privilege is set. If not, the per

AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Nicolai Johannes
Yes, world readable/writable files can still be accessed by dropping the new privileges. One reason are library calls that need to read some public files (like things in /etc). The need to manipulate or remove world writable files is harder to justify, on the other hand, world writable files ar

AW: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Nicolai Johannes
Concerning the large number of new privileges: Yes, it is likely that a process may wish to drop all the privs together. On the other hand, dropping only PRIV_FILE_IDENTITY_OWNER would still allow to read files, write files, execute files, search files, but not change their permissions and acces

Re: AW: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Casper . Dik
>On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 01:01:38AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'm not sure if I like the name, then; nor the emphasis on the >> euid/egid (as those terms are not commonly used in the kernel; >> there's a reason why the effective uid was cr->cr_uid and not cr_euid. >> >> In other words, w

[zfs-discuss] ZFS throttling - how does it work?

2006-06-22 Thread Andrzej Butkiewicz
Hi zfs-discuss, I have some questions about throttling on ZFS 1) I know that throttling is activating while one sync is waiting for another. (http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/roch?entry=the_dynamics_of_zfs) Is it possible to throttle only selected processes (e.g. nfsd) ? 2) How can I obtain som

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Dana H. Myers
Darren J Moffat wrote: > Bill Sommerfeld wrote: >> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 14:15, Neil Perrin wrote: >>> Of course we would need to stress the dangers of setting 'deferred'. >>> What do you guys think? >> >> I can think of a use case for "deferred": improving the efficiency of a >> large mega-"transa

Re: AW: [zfs-discuss] Proposal for new basic privileges related with filesystem access checks

2006-06-22 Thread Darren J Moffat
Mark Shellenbaum wrote: I thought that privileges only granted additional access that would otherwise be denied by a file's permission bits/ACL. This sounds like you want the presence of certain privileges to override permission bits? There are two types of privileges in Solaris 10 onwards, t

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Darren J Moffat
Bill Sommerfeld wrote: On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 14:15, Neil Perrin wrote: Of course we would need to stress the dangers of setting 'deferred'. What do you guys think? I can think of a use case for "deferred": improving the efficiency of a large mega-"transaction"/batch job such as a nightly build

Re: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Roch
How about the 'deferred' option be on a leased basis with a deadline to revert to normal behavior; at most 24hrs at a time. Console output everytime the option is enabled. -r Torrey McMahon writes: > Neil Perrin wrote: > > > > Of course we would need to stress the dangers of setting 'd

RE: [zfs-discuss] 15 minute fdsync problem and ZFS: Solved

2006-06-22 Thread Roch
Martin, Marcia R writes: > Did I miss something on this thread? Was the root cause of the > 15-minute fsync <> actually determined? > I think so ;-) -r ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/