Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root boot failure?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 06:38:56AM +0200, Richard Elling wrote: Vincent Fox wrote: So I decided to test out failure modes of ZFS root mirrors. Installed on a V240 with nv90. Worked great. Pulled out disk1, then replaced it and attached again, resilvered, all good. Now I pull out disk0 to simulate failure there. OS up and running fine, but lots of error message about SYNC CACHE. Next I decided to init 0, and reinsert disk 0, and reboot. Uh oh! This is actually very good. It means that ZFS recognizes that there are two, out of sync mirrors and you booted from the oldest version. What happens when you change the boot order? -- richard Hm, but the steps taken, as I read it, were: pull disk1 replace *resilver* pull disk0 ... So the 2 disks should be in sync (due to resilvering)? Or is there another step needed to get the disks in sync? Kurt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root boot failure?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:43:26PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: AFAIK, SVM will not handle this problem well. ZFS and Solaris Cluster can detect this because the configuration metadata knows the time difference (ZFS can detect this by the latest txg). Having been through this myself with SVM in the past, no, it does not handle this well at all. If I remember correctly Veritas handled this a lot better than SVM did/does (please bear in mind I haven't used either of those in quite some time). I predict that if you had booted from disk B, then it would have worked (but I don't have the hardware setup to test this tonight) Unfortunatly I thought of this after deleting his mail. He said that before pulling disk B he scrambled it with dd. He broke the boot sectors on disk B, which ZFS doesn't replicate as far as I can tell. (See the section on ZFS install where it talks about adding a mirror after the fact, you need to manually install the boot sectors.) IMHO, ZFS boot/root should really go out of its way to make sure the boot sectors are up to date. As most other mirroring solutions (hardware or software) mirror raw volumes, they just do it automatically due to the nature of how they work. This is behavior that has come to be expected, so it's a really good idea if ZFS could do it. I think something else that might help is if ZFS were to boot, see that the volume it booted from is older than the other one, print a message to that effect and either halt the machine or issue a reboot pointing at the other disk (probably easier with OF than the BIOS of a PC). -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS dependent clones question
Hi, After managing to upgrade to svn90 after a few failed attempts, I was left with a ton of zfs datasets (see previous post) most of which I've managed to destroy, however there's something that stumps me NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 9.85G 24.6G62K /rpool rpool/ROOT 7.74G 24.6G18K /rpool/ROOT rpool/ROOT/opensolaris 55.7M 24.6G 2.95G legacy rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-10 7.68G 24.6G 4.44G legacy rpool/ROOT/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:-:2008-06-01-08:08:11 1.47G - 2.95G - rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-10/opt 1.78G 24.6G 1.78G /opt rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-10/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:-:2008-06-01-08:08:11 138K - 622M - rpool/ROOT/opensolaris/opt 0 24.6G 622M /opt rpool/export2.10G 24.6G21K /export rpool/export/home 2.10G 24.6G 2.10G /export/home -bash-3.2# zfs destroy rpool/ROOT/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:-:2008-06-01-08:08:11 cannot destroy 'rpool/ROOT/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:-:2008-06-01-08:08:11': snapshot has dependent clones use '-R' to destroy the following datasets: rpool/ROOT/opensolaris/opt rpool/ROOT/opensolaris and -bash-3.2# zfs destroy rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-10/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:-:2008-06-01-08:08:11 cannot destroy 'rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-10/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:-:2008-06-01-08:08:11': snapshot has dependent clones use '-R' to destroy the following datasets: rpool/ROOT/opensolaris/opt opensolaris-10 is the dataset I am currently operating under (or so I presume!), is it safe to destroy the other one (and update grub accordingly) ? Thank you, Yiannis. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Boot from mirrored vdev
Hi all, Booting from a two-way mirrored metadevice created using SVM can be a bit risky, especially when one of the drives fail (not being able to form a quarum, the kernel will panic). Is booting from mirrored vdev created by using ZFS similarly iffy? That is, if one disk in the vdev dies, will the machine panic? Cheers, -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Boot from mirrored vdev
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 07:29:08AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote: Hi all, Booting from a two-way mirrored metadevice created using SVM can be a bit risky, especially when one of the drives fail (not being able to form a quarum, the kernel will panic). SVM doesn't panic in that situation. At boot time, root is mounted read-only, so a panic is unnecessary to protect the filesystem. Instead the boot process stalls and you get a shell that lets you resolve the replica states manually (usually by deleting the replicas from the dead drive). Panic should only happen if you're already running and you then lose more than 50% of replicas (uncommon in 2 disk setups). Is booting from mirrored vdev created by using ZFS similarly iffy? That is, if one disk in the vdev dies, will the machine panic? Good question. SVM by default stalls the boot to ensure a strict quorum. VxVM continues the boot even though only 50% of DB are available. I think this is because it uses a timestamp/generation ID to resolve which copy is more up-to-date. -- Darren ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root boot failure?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 07:28:23AM -0400, Brian Hechinger wrote: I think something else that might help is if ZFS were to boot, see that the volume it booted from is older than the other one, print a message to that effect and either halt the machine or issue a reboot pointing at the other disk (probably easier with OF than the BIOS of a PC). That's the method taken by VxVM. When it finally imports the booting DG, it may find that the root volume isn't present on the disk that booted. It will stop the boot process at that point. -- Darren ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root boot failure?
Vincent, I think you are running into some existing bugs, particularly this one: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6668666 Please review the list of known issues here: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/boot/ Also check out the issues described on page 77 in this section: Booting From a Alternate Disk in a Mirrored ZFS root Pool http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/ Cindy Vincent Fox wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 06:38:56AM +0200, Richard pull disk1 replace *resilver* pull disk0 ... So the 2 disks should be in sync (due to resilvering)? Or is there another step needed to get the disks in sync? That is an accurate summary. I thought I was all good with the resilver and in fact ran a scrub and status to be certain of it. If boot sectors do not get installed by default onto disk1, I will have to make this a part of the post-install script for JumpStart. I will re-run this experiment with a clean nv90 install onto a mirror set, and just pull disk0 this time without messing with disk1. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root boot failure?
Kurt Schreiner wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 06:38:56AM +0200, Richard Elling wrote: Vincent Fox wrote: So I decided to test out failure modes of ZFS root mirrors. Installed on a V240 with nv90. Worked great. Pulled out disk1, then replaced it and attached again, resilvered, all good. Now I pull out disk0 to simulate failure there. OS up and running fine, but lots of error message about SYNC CACHE. Next I decided to init 0, and reinsert disk 0, and reboot. Uh oh! This is actually very good. It means that ZFS recognizes that there are two, out of sync mirrors and you booted from the oldest version. What happens when you change the boot order? -- richard Hm, but the steps taken, as I read it, were: pull disk1 replace *resilver* pull disk0 ... So the 2 disks should be in sync (due to resilvering)? Or is there another step needed to get the disks in sync? The amnesia occurred later: Now I pull out disk0 to simulate failure there. OS up and running fine, but lots of error message about SYNC CACHE. Next I decided to init 0, and reinsert disk 0, and reboot. Uh oh! -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs root / cannot activate new BE
i folks i have set up a new BE on zfs root, but it does not want to activate. server is build 90, x86 (64 bit) i already have 2 other BE's on UFS/SVM when i try to activate the zfs BE it seems OK, but on reboot now zfs BE option is shown in grub. i have 2 disks: disk 1 has the 2 SVM metadevices on it, disk 2 has the new zfs pool in debugging it seems that the live upgrade activate.sh script (/etc/lu/DelayUpdate/activate.sh) is having a problem not letting the BE activation go ahead; here's the relevant pieces: + cd /etc/lu + [ no = yes ] + ./installgrub.findroot ./stage1.findroot ./stage2.findroot /dev/md/rdsk/d30 floppy: cannot mount pcfs invalid bios paramet block + [ 255 -ne 0 ] + gettext installgrub failed for %s + /etc/lib/lu/luprintf -Eelp2 installgrub failed for %s /dev/md/rdsk/d30 ERROR: installgrub failed for /dev/md/rdsk/d30 + /bin/touch /tmp/.lulib.luig.error.13449 [...] + cd /etc/lu + [ no = yes ] + ./installgrub.findroot ./stage1.findroot ./stage2.findroot /dev/md/rdsk/d0 cannot open /boot/grub/stage2 on pcfs + [ 255 -ne 0 ] + gettext installgrub failed for %s + /etc/lib/lu/luprintf -Eelp2 installgrub failed for %s /dev/md/rdsk/d0 ERROR: installgrub failed for /dev/md/rdsk/d0 + /bin/touch /tmp/.lulib.luig.error.13449 as you can see, trying to run installgrub on the metadevices is throwing errors (2 different errors, strangely). manually running installgrub on the raw slices works OK. manually running the same commands on the metadevices raises pretty much the same info: host:/etc/lu# ./installgrub.findroot ./stage1.findroot ./stage2.findroot /dev/md/rdsk/d30 invalid bios paramet block floppy: cannot mount pcfs host:/etc/lu# ./installgrub.findroot ./stage1.findroot ./stage2.findroot /dev/md/rdsk/d0 mount: /dev/md/dsk/d0 is not a DOS filesystem. cannot mount /dev/md/dsk/d0 trying to activate one of the svm-based BE's throws similar errors if anyone's seen similar i'd appreciate any suggestions; i'm worried i might have screwed up the grub location a bit when juggling the disks around to make space for zfs, but i'm not sure where to investigate to work out what i might have done. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root boot failure?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 07:31:49PM +0200, Richard Elling wrote: Kurt Schreiner wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 06:38:56AM +0200, Richard Elling wrote: Vincent Fox wrote: So I decided to test out failure modes of ZFS root mirrors. Installed on a V240 with nv90. Worked great. Pulled out disk1, then replaced it and attached again, resilvered, all good. Now I pull out disk0 to simulate failure there. OS up and running fine, but lots of error message about SYNC CACHE. Next I decided to init 0, and reinsert disk 0, and reboot. Uh oh! This is actually very good. It means that ZFS recognizes that there are two, out of sync mirrors and you booted from the oldest version. What happens when you change the boot order? -- richard Hm, but the steps taken, as I read it, were: pull disk1 replace *resilver* pull disk0 ... So the 2 disks should be in sync (due to resilvering)? Or is there another step needed to get the disks in sync? The amnesia occurred later: Now I pull out disk0 to simulate failure there. OS up and running fine, but lots of error message about SYNC CACHE. Next I decided to init 0, and reinsert disk 0, and reboot. Uh oh! Ah! Ok, got it now... Thanks, Kurt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Filesystem for each home dir - 10,000 users?
| Every time I've come across a usage scenario where the submitter asks | for per user quotas, its usually a university type scenario where | univeristies are notorious for providing lots of CPU horsepower (many, | many servers) attached to a simply dismal amount of back-end storage. Speaking as one of those pesky university people (although we don't use quotas): one of the reasons this happens is that servers are a lot less expensive than disk space. With disk space you have to factor in the cost of backups and ongoing maintenance, wheras another server is just N thousand dollars in one time costs and some rack space. (This assumes that you are not rack space, heat, or power constrained, which I think most university environments generally are not.) Or to put it another way: disk space is a permanent commitment, servers are not. - cks ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Boot from mirrored vdev
Rich Teer wrote: Hi all, Booting from a two-way mirrored metadevice created using SVM can be a bit risky, especially when one of the drives fail (not being able to form a quarum, the kernel will panic). Is booting from mirrored vdev created by using ZFS similarly iffy? That is, if one disk in the vdev dies, will the machine panic? The machine should not panic and should be bootable, if properly configured. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] SXCE build 90 vs S10U6?
How close is Solaris Express build 90 to what will be released as the official Solaris 10 update 6? We just bought five x4500 servers, but I don't really want to deploy in production with U5. There are a number of features in U6 I'd like to have (zfs allow for better integration with our local identity system, refquota support to minimize user confusion, ZFS boot, ...) On the other hand, I don't really want to let these five servers sit around as insanely expensive and heavy paperweights all summer waiting for U6 to hopefully be released by September. My understanding is that SXCE maintains the same packaging system and jumpstart installation procedure as Solaris 10 (as opposed to OpenSolaris, which is completely different). If SXCE is close enough to what will become Solaris 10U6, I could do my initial development and integration on top of that, and be ready to go into production almost as soon as U6 is released, rather than wait for it to be released and then have to spin my wheels working with it. Would it be feasible to develop a ZFS boot jumpstart configuration with SXCE that would be mostly compatible with U6? Does SXCE have any particular ZFS features above and beyond what will be included in U6 I should be sure to avoid? Any other caveats I would want to take into consideration? Thanks much... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | [EMAIL PROTECTED] California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SXCE build 90 vs S10U6?
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 17:52 -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote: How close is Solaris Express build 90 to what will be released as the official Solaris 10 update 6? We just bought five x4500 servers, but I don't really want to deploy in production with U5. There are a number of features in U6 I'd like to have (zfs allow for better integration with our local identity system, refquota support to minimize user confusion, ZFS boot, ...) On the other hand, I don't really want to let these five servers sit around as insanely expensive and heavy paperweights all summer waiting for U6 to hopefully be released by September. My understanding is that SXCE maintains the same packaging system and jumpstart installation procedure as Solaris 10 (as opposed to OpenSolaris, which is completely different). If SXCE is close enough to what will become Solaris 10U6, I could do my initial development and integration on top of that, and be ready to go into production almost as soon as U6 is released, rather than wait for it to be released and then have to spin my wheels working with it. While the S10 updates include features backported from Nevada you can only upgrade from S10 to Solaris Express, not the other way around (which would technically be a downgrade). (As you probably know Solaris 10 and Nevada are completely separate lines of development. Solaris Express is built from Nevada, as are the other OpenSolaris distributions.) Would it be feasible to develop a ZFS boot jumpstart configuration with SXCE that would be mostly compatible with U6? Does SXCE have any particular ZFS features above and beyond what will be included in U6 I should be sure to avoid? Any other caveats I would want to take into consideration? I don't think there will be any spec changes for S10u6 from the ZFS boot support currently available in SX, but the JumpStart configuration for SX might not be compatible for other reasons (install-discuss may know better). -Albert ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SXCE build 90 vs S10U6?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They aren't even close to each other. ?Things like in-kernel cifs will never be put back. My question is, what is holding you back from just deploying on sxce? Sun now offers support for it. To the best of my knowledge, Sun has never provided support for sxce. They have provided support for sxde, but that is winding down. http://developers.sun.com/sxde/support.jsp With the release of OpenSolaris 2008.05 we are pleased to announce the availability of OpenSolaris Subscriptions support as well as Sun Developer Expert Assistance for OpenSolaris. This marks the end of the SXDE program. To provide a smooth transition to OpenSolaris support, Sun Developer Expert Assistance for SXDE 1/08 will remain available through July of 2008. Thank you for your support and participation. We look forward to seeing you at opensolaris.com. If you've been following the various lists related to OpenSolaris 2008.05, you will likely understand that the plans and mechanisms around its support are not yet fully baked. Currently, the only installation mechanism requires a live CD and GUI console. This doesn't fit very well with my idea of what I want to run in production in a data center. That, combined with a relatively short supported life (18 months) it doesn't fit the bill for many data centers. I'm thinking that by the time that it is possible to have a private repository (e.g. mirror of pkg.sun.com) and the current batch of really fresh code from the Installation and Packaging community gets burned in a bit, the 18 month cycle will not be such a big deal in many cases. It's shaping up that upgrading to the latest bits should be easier and safer than patching is today. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SXCE build 90 vs S10U6?
I guess I find the difference between b90 and opensolaris trivial given we're supposed to be getting constant updates following the sxce builds. On 6/12/08, Mike Gerdts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They aren't even close to each other. ?Things like in-kernel cifs will never be put back. My question is, what is holding you back from just deploying on sxce? Sun now offers support for it. To the best of my knowledge, Sun has never provided support for sxce. They have provided support for sxde, but that is winding down. http://developers.sun.com/sxde/support.jsp With the release of OpenSolaris 2008.05 we are pleased to announce the availability of OpenSolaris Subscriptions support as well as Sun Developer Expert Assistance for OpenSolaris. This marks the end of the SXDE program. To provide a smooth transition to OpenSolaris support, Sun Developer Expert Assistance for SXDE 1/08 will remain available through July of 2008. Thank you for your support and participation. We look forward to seeing you at opensolaris.com. If you've been following the various lists related to OpenSolaris 2008.05, you will likely understand that the plans and mechanisms around its support are not yet fully baked. Currently, the only installation mechanism requires a live CD and GUI console. This doesn't fit very well with my idea of what I want to run in production in a data center. That, combined with a relatively short supported life (18 months) it doesn't fit the bill for many data centers. I'm thinking that by the time that it is possible to have a private repository (e.g. mirror of pkg.sun.com) and the current batch of really fresh code from the Installation and Packaging community gets burned in a bit, the 18 month cycle will not be such a big deal in many cases. It's shaping up that upgrading to the latest bits should be easier and safer than patching is today. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SXCE build 90 vs S10U6?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess I find the difference between b90 and opensolaris trivial given we're supposed to be getting constant updates following the sxce builds. But the supported version of OpenSolaris will not be on the same schedule as sxce. Opensolaris 2008.05 is based on snv_86. The supported version will only have bug fixes until 2008.11. That is, it follows much more of fthe same type of schedule that sxde did. Additionally, OpenSolaris has completely redone the installation and packaging bits. When you are running a bunch of servers with aggregate storage capacity of over 100 TB you are probably doing something that is rather important to the company that shelled out well over $100,000 for the hardware. In most (not all) environments that I have worked in this says that you don't want to be relying too heavily on 1.0 software[1] or external web services[2] that the maintainer has not shown a track record[3] of maintaining in a way that meets typical enterprise-level requirements. 1. The non-live CD installer has not even made it into the unstable Mercurial repository. The pkg and beadm commands and associated libraries have less than a month of existence in anything that any vendor is claiming to support. 2. AFAIK, pkg.sun.com does not serve packages yet. pkg.opensolaris.org serves up packages from snv_90 by default even though snv_86 is the variant that is supposedly supported. 3. There were numerous complaints of repeated timeouts when the snv_90 packages were released resulting in having to restart the upgrade from the start. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SXCE build 90 vs S10U6?
...There was a post just this afternoon stating the opensolaris update track would be back to following sxce with b91 so I haven't a clue what you're talking about. As for the features/support they're looking for, if they wanted enterprise infallible storage, a thumper was the wrong choice day 1. I love the platform, but its nowhere near the league of a filer, or universe of a usp/sym. On 6/12/08, Mike Gerdts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess I find the difference between b90 and opensolaris trivial given we're supposed to be getting constant updates following the sxce builds. But the supported version of OpenSolaris will not be on the same schedule as sxce. Opensolaris 2008.05 is based on snv_86. The supported version will only have bug fixes until 2008.11. That is, it follows much more of fthe same type of schedule that sxde did. Additionally, OpenSolaris has completely redone the installation and packaging bits. When you are running a bunch of servers with aggregate storage capacity of over 100 TB you are probably doing something that is rather important to the company that shelled out well over $100,000 for the hardware. In most (not all) environments that I have worked in this says that you don't want to be relying too heavily on 1.0 software[1] or external web services[2] that the maintainer has not shown a track record[3] of maintaining in a way that meets typical enterprise-level requirements. 1. The non-live CD installer has not even made it into the unstable Mercurial repository. The pkg and beadm commands and associated libraries have less than a month of existence in anything that any vendor is claiming to support. 2. AFAIK, pkg.sun.com does not serve packages yet. pkg.opensolaris.org serves up packages from snv_90 by default even though snv_86 is the variant that is supposedly supported. 3. There were numerous complaints of repeated timeouts when the snv_90 packages were released resulting in having to restart the upgrade from the start. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Filesystem for each home dir - 10,000 users?
On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Chris Siebenmann wrote: Or to put it another way: disk space is a permanent commitment, servers are not. In the olden times (e.g. 1980s) on various CDC and Univac timesharing services, I recall there being two kinds of storage ... dayfiles and permanent files. The former could (and as a matter of policy did) be removed at the end of the day. It was typically cheaper to move the fraction of one's dayfile output to tape, and have it rolled back in the next day ... but that was an optimization (or pessimization if the true costs were calculated). I could easily imagine providing two tiers of storage for a university environment ... one which wasn't backed up, and doesn't come with any serious promises ... which could be pretty inexpensive and the second tier which has the kind of commitments you suggest are required. Tier 2 should be better than storing things in /tmp, but could approach consumer pricing ... and still be good enough for a lot of uses. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
