Ok, thank you Nils, Wade for the concise replies.
After much reading I agree that the ZFS-development queued features do deserve
a higher ranking on the priority list (pool-shrinking/disk-removal and
user/group quotas would be my favourites), so probably the deduplication tool
I'd need would,
Hi all,
I've just pushed some of the changes coming up in 0.11
hg clone ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/hg/jds/zfs-snapshot
I've got some commentary on the Early Access nature of this release at:
http://blogs.sun.com/timf/entry/zfs_automatic_snapshots_0_11
Comments (and bug reports) welcome!
Ok, used the development 2008.11 (b95) livecd earlier this morning to import
the pool, and it worked fine. I then rebooted back into Nexenta and all is
well. Many thanks for the help guys!
Chris
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Hi all,
I can confirm that this is fixed too. I ran into the exact same issue yesterday
after destroying a clone:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=70459tstart=0
I used the b95-based 2008.11 development livecd this morning and the pool is
now back up and running again after a
Hi,
After upgrading to b95 of OSOL/Indiana, and doing a ZFS upgrade to the newer
revision, all arrays I have using ZFS mirroring are displaying errors. This
started happening immediately after ZFS upgrades. Here is an example:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ zpool status
pool: rpool
state: DEGRADED
Can anybody help me get this pool online. During my testing I've been removing
and re-attaching disks regularly, and it appears that I've attached a disk that
used to be part of the pool, but that doesn't contain up to date data.
Since I've used the same pool name a number of times, it's
Hi David,
have you tried mounting and re-mounting all filesystems which are not
being mounted automatically? See other posts to zfs-discuss.
Nils
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
glitch:
have you tried mounting and re-mounting all filesystems which are not
^^^
unmounting
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
I've just gotten a pool back online after the server booted with it
unavailable, but found that NFS shares were not automatically restarted when
the pool came online.
Although the pool was online and sharenfs was set, sharemgr was showing no
pools shared, and the NFS server service was
Jim Klimov wrote:
Ok, thank you Nils, Wade for the concise replies.
After much reading I agree that the ZFS-development queued features do
deserve a higher ranking on the priority list (pool-shrinking/disk-removal
and user/group quotas would be my favourites), so probably the deduplication
Recently I managed to create a pool named 'vault' for my external usb HDD
(250G).
I generally backup my data using the zfs send and zfs recieve commands.
However, I don't leave my computer or usb HDD on 24/7.
Before I poweroff the HDD, I export the pool (zpool export vault). Then I turn
off
Hello,
ZFS is working great for us, but we have seen it use all or most of the
memory on our systems.Is there a recommended setting to put in
/etc/system to limit the amount of RAM to cache? Or is it recommended
to just leave it alone, and let it release the memory as needed. Most
of
I apologize if this is a duplicate. Dave Bevans notes indicate he sent
an email for assistance to the alias for help already but I don't see it
posted in the notes cust called back in.
T5240 Sol 10
thru FC switch, non Sun, to EMC array
36 LUNs are being presented to the host, cust is trying
Does some script-usable ZFS API (if any) provide for fetching
block/file hashes (checksums) stored in the filesystem itself? In
fact, am I wrong to expect file-checksums to be readily available?
Yes. Files are not checksummed, blocks are checksummed.
-- richard
Further, even if
Poulos, Joe wrote:
Hello,
ZFS is working great for us, but we have seen it use all or most of
the memory on our systems.Is there a recommended setting to put in
/etc/system to limit the amount of RAM to cache? Or is it
recommended to just leave it alone, and let it release the
I've rebooted the system(s), which should accomplish this. I'm not clear
which posts you are referring to, I just joined the list today. The ZFS pool
is being mounted automatically, and that is the only filesystem on my
system. I filed: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3079 (bug
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote:
zfs set checksum=sha256
Expect performance to really suck after setting this.
Bob
==
Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote:
zfs set checksum=sha256
Expect performance to really suck after setting this.
Do you have evidence of that ? What kind of workload and how did you
test it ?
I've recently been benchmarking using filebench filemicro and
After rebooting, I ran a zpool scrub on the root pool, to see if the issue
was resolved:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ pfexec zpool status
pool: rpool
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An
attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are
On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
than a private copy. I wouldn't expect that to have too big an
impact (I
On a SPARC CMT (Niagara 1+) based system wouldn't that be likely to
have a large impact?
--
Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank
5430
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure I have changed the sha256.c in the
ZFS source to use the default kernel one via the crypto framework rather
than a private copy. I wouldn't expect that to have too big an impact (I
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote:
zfs set checksum=sha256
Expect performance to really suck after setting this.
Do you have evidence of that ? What kind of workload and how did you test it
I did some random
Keith Bierman wrote:
On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
than a private copy. I wouldn't expect that to have too big an impact (I
On a SPARC CMT (Niagara 1+) based system wouldn't that be likely to have
a large impact?
UltraSPARC T1 has no hardware SHA256 so I
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure I have changed the sha256.c in the
ZFS source to use the default kernel one via the crypto framework rather
than a private copy. I wouldn't expect that to have too
Victor Latushkin wrote:
Hi Tom and all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# uname -a
SunOS cs3.kw 5.10 Generic_127127-11 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T200
Btw, have you considered opening support call for this issue?
As a follow up to the whole story, with the fantastic help of Victor,
the failed pool is
I'm trying to get a feel on how to deal with a ZFS root filesystem when booted
off an alternate medium. For UFS, this simply meant finding the correct device
(slice on a disk) to mount and then mount it, assuming there wasn't some volume
manager in the way.
For ZFS, this is a little more
Oh, and one more question.
Would it bo possible for me to copy data (i.e. photos) to my external usb HDD
(which is zfs) and to go to another computer that runs solaris and view the
data in that disk.
I know it sounds silly, but I want to know if the pool name and metadata and
such are stored
r == Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
r I've just gotten a pool back online after the server booted
r with it unavailable, but found that NFS shares were not
r automatically restarted when the pool came online.
``me, too.'' in b44, in b71.
for workarounds, export/import can
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Keith Bierman wrote:
On a SPARC CMT (Niagara 1+) based system wouldn't that be likely to have a
large impact?
UltraSPARC T1 has no hardware SHA256 so I wouldn't expect any real change
from running the private
After a helpful email from Miles, I destroyed all of my other opensolaris-*
filesystems (using beadm destroy), instead of his suggestion to
mount/unmount them all (easier this way.) I did another scrub:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ pfexec zpool status
pool: rpool
state: ONLINE
scrub: scrub completed
Yes, you should be able to use it on another computer. All the zfs information
is stored on disk. The one thing you need to be aware of is the version of ZFS
your pool is using. Systems can read versions older than the one they support
fine, but they won't be able to mount newer ones. You
Miles Nordin wrote:
jcm == James C McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
thp == Todd H Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mh == Matt Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
js == John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
re == Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
cg == Carson Gaspar [EMAIL
re == Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
re unrecoverable read as the dominant disk failure mode. [...]
re none of the traditional software logical volume managers nor
re the popular open source file systems (other than ZFS :-)
re address this problem.
Other LVM's should
Richard Elling wrote:
No snake oil. Pulling cables only simulates pulling cables. If you
are having difficulty with cables falling out, then this problem cannot
be solved with software. It *must* be solved with hardware.
But the main problem with simulating disk failures by pulling cables
Is there any flaw with the process below, customer asked:
Sun Cluser with each zpool composed of 1 Lun (yes, they have been
advised to use redundant config instead). They do not export the pool to
other host instead they use BCV to make a mirror of the lun. They then
split the mirror and
The behavior of ZFS to an error reported by an underlying device
driver is tunable by the zpool failmode property. By default, it is
set to wait. For root pools, the installer may change this
to continue. The key here is that you can argue with the choice
of default behavior, but don't
Since OpenSolaris is open source, perhaps some brave
soul can investigate the issues with the IDE device driver and
send a patch.
Fearing that other Senior Kernel Engineers, Solaris, might exhibit similar
responses, or join in and play “antagonize the noob,” I decided that I would
try to
One can carve furniture with an axe, especially if
it's razor-sharp,
ut that doesn't make it a spokeshave, plane and saw.
I love star office, and use it every day, but my
publisher uses
rame, so that's what I use for books.
--dave
As of Build 95, I am still unable to read a good part
PS: I also think it's worthy to note the level of supportive and constructive
feedback that many others have provided, and how much I appreciate it. Thanks!
Keep it coming!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Carson Gaspar wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
No snake oil. Pulling cables only simulates pulling cables. If you
are having difficulty with cables falling out, then this problem cannot
be solved with software. It *must* be solved with hardware.
But the main problem with simulating disk
Todd, 3 days ago you were asked what mode the BIOS was using, AHCI or IDE
compatibility. Which is it? Did you change it? What was the result? A few other
posters suggested the same thing but the thread went off into left field and I
believe the question / suggestions got lost in the noise.
I think that your expectations from ZFS are
reasonable. However, it is useful to determine if pulling the IDE drive locks
the entire IDE channel, which serves the other disks as well. This
could happen at a hardware level, or at a device driver level. If this
happens, then there is nothing
Miles Nordin wrote:
re == Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
re unrecoverable read as the dominant disk failure mode. [...]
re none of the traditional software logical volume managers nor
re the popular open source file systems (other than ZFS :-)
re
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
One can carve furniture with an axe, especially if
it's razor-sharp,
ut that doesn't make it a spokeshave, plane and saw.
I love star office, and use it every day, but my
publisher uses
rame, so that's what I use for books.
--dave
As of Build 95, I am still
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Again, I don't see any reason why we should not consider using
StarOffice (BTW, it's StarOffice--one word, not star office) to
publish the Adm Guide, as well as other Sun publications.
You are saying that Sun should start over from scratch and
Hi all,
Would I be correct in thinking that LiveUpgrade plays nicely
with ZFS boot, now that the latter is integrated into Nevada?
TIA,
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer
More or less. There are a number of bugs in LU
support of zfs that we've just fixed in the final builds
of the S10 Update 6 release, which we'll forward-port
to Nevada as soon as we catch our breath. Most but
not all are related to support of zones.
Lori
Rich Teer wrote:
Hi all,
Would I be
I've been playing with this, and it seems what's going on is simply
poor documentation on how snapshotting and send/recv interact.
Here's the snippet that's been posted prior that will work once and
then fail on subsequent runs
So for example, each night you could do:
# zfs snapshot -r
Again, I don't see any reason why we should not
consider using
StarOffice (BTW, it's StarOffice--one word, not
star office) to
publish the Adm Guide, as well as other Sun
publications.
You are saying that Sun should start over from
scratch and attempt to
use the wrong kind of tool
2008/8/26 Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Doing a good job with this error is mostly about not freezing
the whole filesystem for the 30sec it takes the drive to report the
error.
That is not a ZFS problem. Please file bugs in the appropriate category.
Who's problem is it? It can't be the
I suspect the problem with ZFS boot from USB sticks
is,
that the kernel does not create devid properties
for the
USB stick, and apparently those devids are now
required for
zfs booting.
The kernel (sd driver) does not create devid
properties for USB flash
memory sticks, because most
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:12:01PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
Would I be correct in thinking that LiveUpgrade plays nicely
with ZFS boot, now that the latter is integrated into Nevada?
Wonderfully! `lucreate' is almost instantaneous because it doesn't
do any copying. You can also put several
greg evigan wrote:
Could anyone explain where the capacity % comes from for this df -h output
(or where to read to find out, having scoured the man page for df and ZFS
admin guide already)?
# df -h -F zfs
Filesystem size used avail capacity Mounted on
jira-pool/artifactory
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
2008/8/26 Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Doing a good job with this error is mostly about not freezing
the whole filesystem for the 30sec it takes the drive to report the
error.
That is not a ZFS problem. Please file bugs in the appropriate category.
54 matches
Mail list logo
