Re: [zfs-discuss] live upgrade with lots of zfs filesystems
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Paul B. Henson wrote: However, I went to create a new boot environment to install the patches into, and so far that's been running for about an hour and a half :(, which was not expected or planned for. [...] I don't think I'm going to make my downtime window :(, and will probably need to reschedule the patching. I never considered I might have to start the patch process six hours before the window. Well, so far lucreate took 3.5 hours, lumount took 1.5 hours, applying the patches took all of 10 minutes, luumount took about 20 minutes, and luactivate has been running for about 45 minutes. I'm assuming it will probably take at least the 1.5 hours of the lumount (particularly considering it appears to be running a lumount process under the hood) if not the 3.5 hours of lucreate. Add in the 1-1.5 hours to reboot, and, well, so much for patches this maintenance window. The lupi_bebasic process seems to be the time killer here. Not sure what it's doing, but it spent 75 minutes running strcmp. Pretty much nothing but strcmp. 75 CPU minutes running strcmp I took a look for the source but I guess that component's not a part of opensolaris, or at least I couldn't find it. Hopefully I can figure out how to make this perform a little more acceptably before our next maintenance window. -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu 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] Status/priority of 6761786
Thanks, Trevor. I understand the RFE/CR distinction. What I don't understand is how this is not a bug that should be fixed in all solaris versions. The related ID 6612830 says it was fixed in Sol 10 U6, which was a while ago. I am using OpenSolaris, so I would really appreciate confirmation that it has been fixed in OpenSolaris as well. I can't tell by the info on the bugs DB - it seems like it hasn't been fixed in OpenSolaris. If it has, then the status should reflect it as Fixed/Closed in the bug database... -- Dave Trevor Pretty wrote: Dave Yep that's an RFE. (Request For Enchantment) that's how things are reported to engineers to fix things inside Sun. If it's an honest to goodness CR = bug (However it normally need a real support paying customer to have a problem to go from RFE to CR) the responsible engineer evaluates it, and eventually gets it fixed, or not. When I worked at Sun I logged a lot of RFEs, only a few where accepted as bugs and fixed. Click on the new Search link and look at the type and state menus. It gives you an idea of the states a RFE and CR goes through. It's probably documented somewhere, but I can't find it. Part of the joy of Sun putting out in public something most other vendors would not dream of doing. Oh and it doesn't help both RFEs and CR are labelled bug at http://bugs.opensolaris.org/ So. Looking at your RFE. It tells you which version on Nevada it was reported against (translating this into an Opensolaris version is easy - NOT!) Look at *Related Bugs* 6612830 http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;jsessionid=e49afb42be7df0f5f17ec9c2d711?bug_id=6612830 This will tell you the *Responsible Engineer* Richard Morris and when it was fixed *Release Fixed* , solaris_10u6(s10u6_01) (*Bug ID:*2160894 http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=2160894) Although as nothing in life is guaranteed it looks like another bug 2160894 has been identified and that's not yet on bugs.opensolaris.org Hope that helps. Trevor Dave wrote: Just to make sure we're looking at the same thing: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6761786 This is not an issue of auto snapshots. If I have a ZFS server that exports 300 zvols via iSCSI and I have daily snapshots retained for 14 days, that is a total of 4200 snapshots. According to the link/bug report above it will take roughly 5.5 hours to import my pool (even when the pool is operating perfectly fine and is not degraded or faulted). This is obviously unacceptable to anyone in an HA environment. Hopefully someone close to the issue can clarify. -- Dave Blake wrote: I think the value of auto-snapshotting zvols is debatable. At least, there are not many folks who need to do this. What I'd rather see is a default property of 'auto-snapshot=off' for zvols. Blake On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Tim Cookt...@cook.ms wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Remco Lengers re...@lengers.com wrote: Dave, Its logged as an RFE (Request for Enhancement) not as a CR (bug). The status is 3-Accepted/ P1 RFE RFE's are generally looked at in a much different way then a CR. ..Remco Seriously? It's considered works as designed for a system to take 5+ hours to boot? Wow. --Tim ___ 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss */ *//* *//*///* www.eagle.co.nz http://www.eagle.co.nz/ This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If received in error please destroy and immediately notify us. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] shrink the rpool zpool or increase rpool zpool via add disk.
Randall Badilla wrote: Hi all: First; it is possible modify the boot zpool rpool after OS installation...? I install the OS on the whole 72GB harddisk.. it is mirrored so If I want to decrease the rpool; for example resize to a 36GB slice it can be done? As far I remember on UFS/SVM I was able to resize boot OS disk via detach mirror (so tranforming to one-way mirror); ajust the partitions then attach de mirror. After sync boot form the resized mirror; re-doing the resize on the remaining mirror and attach mirror and reboot. Dowtime reduced to a reboot times. Yes, you can follow same procedure with zfs (details will differ of course). Second: In the first can't be done; I was guessing I could increase rpool size via adding more hard disk. As you know that must be done with SMI labeled hard disk; well I have tried change the start cyl; changed the label type almost everything and I still get the error zpool add rpool mirror c1t2d0 c1t5d0 cannot label 'c1t2d0': EFI labeled devices are not supported on root pools. once you manually sliced the disks on SMI label then when creating a mirror you need to specify which slice zfs should use. If you specify a disk without providing a slice zfs always try to put new EFI label in place and use entire disk but since in above example you are trying to add to rpool and only SMI is allowed it fails. (zpool add rpool mirror c1t2d0s0 c1t5d0s0) However I'm not sure if raid-10 (two mirrors striped in your case) is allowed for rpools... -- Robert Milkowski http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] live upgrade with lots of zfs filesystems
Well, so far lucreate took 3.5 hours, lumount took 1.5 hours, applying the patches took all of 10 minutes, luumount took about 20 minutes, and luactivate has been running for about 45 minutes. I'm assuming it will probably take at least the 1.5 hours of the lumount (particularly considering it appears to be running a lumount process under the hood) if not the 3.5 hours of lucreate. Add in the 1-1.5 hours to reboot, and, well, so much for patches this maintenance window. The lupi_bebasic process seems to be the time killer here. Not sure what it's doing, but it spent 75 minutes running strcmp. Pretty much nothing but strcmp. 75 CPU minutes running strcmp I took a look for the source but I guess that component's not a part of opensolaris, or at least I couldn't find it. Hopefully I can figure out how to make this perform a little more acceptably before our next maintenance window. Do you have a lot of files in /etc/mnttab, including nfs filesystems mounted from server1,server2:/path? And you're using lucreate for a ZFS root? It should be quick; we are changing a number of things in Solaris 10 update 8 and we hope it will be faster/ Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] shrink the rpool zpool or increase rpool zpool via add disk.
Randall Badilla wrote: Hi all: First; it is possible modify the boot zpool rpool after OS installation...? I install the OS on the whole 72GB harddisk.. it is mirrored so If I want to decrease the rpool; for example resize to a 36GB slice it can be done? As far I remember on UFS/SVM I was able to resize boot OS disk via detach mirror (so tranforming to one-way mirror); ajust the partitions then attach de mirror. After sync boot form the resized mirror; re-doing the resize on the remaining mirror and attach mirror and reboot. Dowtime reduced to a reboot times. Yes, you can follow same procedure with zfs (details will differ of course). You can actually change the partitions while you're using the slice. But after changing the size of both slices you may need to reboot I've used it also when going from ufs to zfs for boot. However I'm not sure if raid-10 (two mirrors striped in your case) is allowed for rpools... Nope: a mirror will work (just boot from one of the devices until the kernel is loaded) and you can even compress the root filesystem (with the standard compress algorithm) Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Status/priority of 6761786
Trevor Pretty wrote: *Release Fixed* , solaris_10u6(s10u6_01) (*Bug ID:*2160894 http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=2160894) Although as nothing in life is guaranteed it looks like another bug 2160894 has been identified and that's not yet on bugs.opensolaris.org That isn't acutally another bug but an implementation artefact of the multiple release support in Bugster. Bug numbers beginning with 2* aren't actually real bugs bug sub-CRs of the main one. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS commands hang after several zfs receives
I've reported this in the past, and have seen a related thread but no resolution so far and I'm still seeing it. Any help really would be very much appreciated. We have three thumpers (X4500): * thumper0 - Running snv_76 * thumper1 - Running snv_121 * thumper2 - Running Solaris 10 update 7 Each has exactly the same disk and zpool configuration, and was bought at the same time. thumper0 sends snapshots hourly to thumpers 1 and 2. It is relatively stable. It's running a very old firmware but we aren't keen to update as this is our live service system. thumper1 regularly hangs during a receive - maybe after 1-2.5 days of hourly receives. All zfs commands on the filesystem receiving the data hang unrecoverably and only a hard system reset or a reboot -n (do not sync disks) will allow the machine to return to service. It's running the most recent system firmware. thumper2 was previously running snv_110-112 (or thereabouts) and was also experiencing exactly the same issues until I `downgraded' to Sol 10u6/7, at which point it began to work perfectly and hasn't experienced any major issues since. It's running the most recent system firmware. Unfortunately, the zpool and zfs versions are too high to downgrade thumper1 too. I've tried upgrading thumper1 to 117 and now 121. We were originally running 112. I'm still seeing exactly the same issues though. What can I do in an attempt to find out what is causing these lockups? Thanks in advance, Andrew Nicols -- Systems Developer e: andrew.nic...@luns.net.uk im: a.nic...@jabber.lancs.ac.uk t: +44 (0)1524 5 10147 Lancaster University Network Services is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 4311892. Registered office: University House, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YW signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] live upgrade with lots of zfs filesystems
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:59:16PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote: On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Paul B. Henson wrote: However, I went to create a new boot environment to install the patches into, and so far that's been running for about an hour and a half :(, which was not expected or planned for. [...] I don't think I'm going to make my downtime window :(, and will probably need to reschedule the patching. I never considered I might have to start the patch process six hours before the window. Well, so far lucreate took 3.5 hours, lumount took 1.5 hours, applying the patches took all of 10 minutes, luumount took about 20 minutes, and luactivate has been running for about 45 minutes. I'm assuming it will Have a look at http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~elkner/luc/lu-5.10.patch or http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~elkner/luc/lu-5.11.patch ... So first install most recent LU patches and than one of the above. Since still on vacation (for ~8 weeks), haven't checked, whether there are new LU patches out there and the patches still match (usually they do). If not, adjusting the files manually shouldn't be a problem ;-) There are also versions for pre svn_b107 and pre 121430-36,121431-37: see http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~elkner/ More info: http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~elkner/luc/lutrouble.html#luslow Have fun, jel. -- Otto-von-Guericke University http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/ Department of Computer Science Geb. 29 R 027, Universitaetsplatz 2 39106 Magdeburg, Germany Tel: +49 391 67 12768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs startup question
Hello, I have a quick question I cant seem to find a good answer for. I have a S10U7 server that is running zfs to a couple of iSCSI shares on one of our sans, we use a routed network to connect to our iSCSI shares with the route statements in solaris. During normal operations it works fine however after every reboot the system tries to mount the iSCSI shares but it cannot reach them due to the fact it has not brought up the routing for it yet and the iscsi sessions take forever to time out. Does anyone know a way around this other than putting the iSCSI shares and the iSCSI nic's on the same subnet? Thank you. Stephen Stogner ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Connect couple of SATA JBODs to one storage server
Roman, are you saying you want to install OpenSolaris on your old servers, or make the servers look like an external JBOD array, that another server will then connect to? No, JBOD is JBOD, just an external enclosure, disks+internal/external connectors -- Roman -- 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] Connect couple of SATA JBODs to one storage server
This non-raid sas controller is $199 and is based on the LSI SAS 1068. http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Networking _Communication/productdetail.aspx?c=usl=ens=bsdcs=0 4sku=310-8285~lt=popup~ck=TopSellers Why Dell? Isn't it cheaper to go with LSI itself? What kind of chassis do these drives currently reside in? Does the backplane have a sata connector for each drive, or does it have a sas backplane [i.e. one SFF 8087 for every four drive slots]? I have standalones sata on backplane, it means I need sff8087 - http://www.3ware.com/images-sas/CBL-SFF8087OCF-10M.jpg Then I need external adapter http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sas_cables_adapters/AD8788-4.asp From adapter I use SFF-8088 cable: http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sas_cables_adapters/-1M.asp The same cable connects JBOD to another JBOD. There is even a set, just exactly for 12 disk chassis I have: http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sata_enclosures/acc-msclb3.asp So, the question remains about HBA. Is this one can be used? Probably not because of internal SAS? http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sas_controllers/adp5805.asp -- Roman -- 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 startup question
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Stephen Stogner wrote: I have a quick question I cant seem to find a good answer for. I have a S10U7 server that is running zfs to a couple of iSCSI shares on one of our sans, we use a routed network to connect to our iSCSI shares with the route statements in solaris. During normal operations it works fine however after every reboot the system tries to mount the iSCSI shares but it cannot reach them due to the fact it has not brought up the routing for it yet and the iscsi sessions take forever to time out. Does anyone know a way around this other than putting the iSCSI shares and the iSCSI nic's on the same subnet? It seems that there must be a missing dependency in the service manifests. A dependency needs to be established between the iSCSI service and the routing service which adds the needed routes. This ensures that routing is running before iSCSI is started. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Snapshot creation time
I'm using find to run a directory scan to see which files have changed since the last snapshot was taken. Something like: zfs snapshot tank/filesys...@snap1 ... time passes ... find /tank/filesystem -newer /tank/filesystem/.zfs/snap1 -print Initially I assumed the time data on the .zfs/snap1 directory would reflect the time the snapshot was taken - but the time values were earlier than that. So I thought perhaps it was the time of the last filesystem modification, but now that seems not to be the case. The above find line is discovering files in the snapshot newer than the snapshot root directory which just seems odd. Please can anyone advise what time data is being used for the snapshot root directory? Also - please can anyone advise any better approach than grepping zpool history to find an accurate-to-the-second snapshot creation or filesystem modification time? I suppose I could encode the time in the snapshot name, but that feels clumsy. zfs get creation will only give me to the nearest minute. Appreciate any observations. Cheers Chris -- 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] Boot error
Hi Grant,
I've had no more luck researching this, mostly because the error message
can mean different things in different scenarios.
I did try to reproduce it and I can't.
I noticed you are booting using boot -s, which I think means the system
will boot from the default boot disk, not the newly added disk.
Can you boot from the secondary boot disk directly by using the boot
path? On my 280r system, I would boot from the secondary disk like this:
ok boot /p...@8,60/SUNW,q...@4/f...@0,0/d...@0,0
Cindy
On 08/27/09 23:54, Grant Lowe wrote:
Hi Cindy,
I tried booting from DVD but nothing showed up. Thanks for the ideas, though.
Maybe your other sources might have something?
- Original Message
From: Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@sun.com
To: Grant Lowe gl...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:24:00 PM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Boot error
Hi Grant,
I don't have all my usual resources at the moment, but I would
boot from alternate media and use the format utility to check
the partitioning on newly added disk, and look for something
like overlapping partitions. Or, possibly, a mismatch between
the actual root slice and the one you are trying to boot from.
Cindy
- Original Message -
From: Grant Lowe gl...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:06 pm
Subject: [zfs-discuss] Boot error
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
I've got a 240z with Solaris 10 Update 7, all the latest patches from
Sunsolve. I've installed a boot drive with ZFS. I mirrored the drive
with zpool. I installed the boot block. The system had been working
just fine. But for some reason, when I try to boot, I get the error:
{1} ok boot -s
Boot device: /p...@1c,60/s...@2/d...@0,0 File and args: -s
SunOS Release 5.10 Version Generic_141414-08 64-bit
Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Division by Zero
{1} ok
Any ideas?
___
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] Snapshot creation time
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Chris Bakero...@lhc.me.uk wrote: I'm using find to run a directory scan to see which files have changed since the last snapshot was taken. Something like: zfs snapshot tank/filesys...@snap1 ... time passes ... find /tank/filesystem -newer /tank/filesystem/.zfs/snap1 -print Initially I assumed the time data on the .zfs/snap1 directory would reflect the time the snapshot was taken - but the time values were earlier than that. So I thought perhaps it was the time of the last filesystem modification, but now that seems not to be the case. The above find line is discovering files in the snapshot newer than the snapshot root directory which just seems odd. Please can anyone advise what time data is being used for the snapshot root directory? The timestamp of the root directory at the time the snapshot was taken? Also - please can anyone advise any better approach than grepping zpool history to find an accurate-to-the-second snapshot creation or filesystem modification time? I suppose I could encode the time in the snapshot name, but that feels clumsy. zfs get creation will only give me to the nearest minute. 'zfs get -p creation' gives you seconds since the epoch, which you can convert using a utility of your choice. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshot creation time
Try a: zfs get -pH -o value creation snapshot -- MikeE -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Chris Baker Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 10:52 AM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] Snapshot creation time I'm using find to run a directory scan to see which files have changed since the last snapshot was taken. Something like: zfs snapshot tank/filesys...@snap1 ... time passes ... find /tank/filesystem -newer /tank/filesystem/.zfs/snap1 -print Initially I assumed the time data on the .zfs/snap1 directory would reflect the time the snapshot was taken - but the time values were earlier than that. So I thought perhaps it was the time of the last filesystem modification, but now that seems not to be the case. The above find line is discovering files in the snapshot newer than the snapshot root directory which just seems odd. Please can anyone advise what time data is being used for the snapshot root directory? Also - please can anyone advise any better approach than grepping zpool history to find an accurate-to-the-second snapshot creation or filesystem modification time? I suppose I could encode the time in the snapshot name, but that feels clumsy. zfs get creation will only give me to the nearest minute. Appreciate any observations. Cheers Chris -- 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] Boot error
Hi
What does boot -L show you?
Enda
On 08/28/09 15:59, cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote:
Hi Grant,
I've had no more luck researching this, mostly because the error message
can mean different things in different scenarios.
I did try to reproduce it and I can't.
I noticed you are booting using boot -s, which I think means the system
will boot from the default boot disk, not the newly added disk.
Can you boot from the secondary boot disk directly by using the boot
path? On my 280r system, I would boot from the secondary disk like this:
ok boot /p...@8,60/SUNW,q...@4/f...@0,0/d...@0,0
Cindy
On 08/27/09 23:54, Grant Lowe wrote:
Hi Cindy,
I tried booting from DVD but nothing showed up. Thanks for the ideas,
though. Maybe your other sources might have something?
- Original Message
From: Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@sun.com
To: Grant Lowe gl...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:24:00 PM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Boot error
Hi Grant,
I don't have all my usual resources at the moment, but I would boot
from alternate media and use the format utility to check the
partitioning on newly added disk, and look for something like
overlapping partitions. Or, possibly, a mismatch between
the actual root slice and the one you are trying to boot from.
Cindy
- Original Message -
From: Grant Lowe gl...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:06 pm
Subject: [zfs-discuss] Boot error
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
I've got a 240z with Solaris 10 Update 7, all the latest patches from
Sunsolve. I've installed a boot drive with ZFS. I mirrored the
drive with zpool. I installed the boot block. The system had been
working just fine. But for some reason, when I try to boot, I get
the error:
{1} ok boot -s
Boot device: /p...@1c,60/s...@2/d...@0,0 File and args: -s
SunOS Release 5.10 Version Generic_141414-08 64-bit
Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Division by Zero
{1} ok
Any ideas?
___
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
--
Enda O'Connor x19781 Software Product Engineering
Patch System Test : Ireland : x19781/353-1-8199718
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshot creation time
Peter, Mike, Thank you very much, zfs get -p is exactly what I need (and why I didn't see it despite having been through the man page dozens of times I cannot fathom.) Much appreciated. Chris -- 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] Boot error
Hi Enda,
This is what I get when I do the boot -L:
1} ok boot -L
Sun Fire V240, No Keyboard
Copyright 1998-2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
OpenBoot 4.13.2, 4096 MB memory installed, Serial #61311259.
Ethernet address 0:3:ba:a7:89:1b, Host ID: 83a7891b.
Rebooting with command: boot -L
Boot device: /p...@1c,60/s...@2/d...@0,0 File and args: -L
1 s10s_u7wos_08
Select environment to boot: [ 1 - 1 ]: 1
To boot the selected entry, invoke:
boot [root-device] -Z rpool/ROOT/s10s_u7wos_08
Program terminated
{1} ok
- Original Message
From: Enda O'Connor enda.ocon...@sun.com
To: cindy.swearin...@sun.com
Cc: Grant Lowe gl...@sbcglobal.net; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 8:18:55 AM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Boot error
Hi
What does boot -L show you?
Enda
On 08/28/09 15:59, cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote:
Hi Grant,
I've had no more luck researching this, mostly because the error message can
mean different things in different scenarios.
I did try to reproduce it and I can't.
I noticed you are booting using boot -s, which I think means the system will
boot from the default boot disk, not the newly added disk.
Can you boot from the secondary boot disk directly by using the boot
path? On my 280r system, I would boot from the secondary disk like this:
ok boot /p...@8,60/SUNW,q...@4/f...@0,0/d...@0,0
Cindy
On 08/27/09 23:54, Grant Lowe wrote:
Hi Cindy,
I tried booting from DVD but nothing showed up. Thanks for the ideas,
though. Maybe your other sources might have something?
- Original Message
From: Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@sun.com
To: Grant Lowe gl...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:24:00 PM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Boot error
Hi Grant,
I don't have all my usual resources at the moment, but I would boot from
alternate media and use the format utility to check the partitioning on
newly added disk, and look for something like overlapping partitions. Or,
possibly, a mismatch between
the actual root slice and the one you are trying to boot from.
Cindy
- Original Message -
From: Grant Lowe gl...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:06 pm
Subject: [zfs-discuss] Boot error
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
I've got a 240z with Solaris 10 Update 7, all the latest patches from
Sunsolve. I've installed a boot drive with ZFS. I mirrored the drive with
zpool. I installed the boot block. The system had been working just fine.
But for some reason, when I try to boot, I get the error:
{1} ok boot -s
Boot device: /p...@1c,60/s...@2/d...@0,0 File and args: -s
SunOS Release 5.10 Version Generic_141414-08 64-bit
Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Division by Zero
{1} ok
Any ideas?
___
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
-- Enda O'Connor x19781 Software Product Engineering
Patch System Test : Ireland : x19781/353-1-8199718
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] cannot import 'tank': pool is formatted using a newer ZFS version
I was using OpenSolaris 2009.06 on an IDE drive, and decided to reinstall onto a mirror (smaller SSDs). My data pool was a separate pool and before reinstalling onto the new SSDs I exported the data pool. After rebooting and installing OpenSolaris 2009.06 onto the first SSD I tried to import my data pool and saw the following message: # zpool import tank cannot import 'tank': pool is formatted using a newer ZFS version I then used Package Manager to do an update all to bring the OS upto the latest version, and so hopefully also the ZFS version, then I retried the import with the same result -- i.e. it won't import. Here's some additional info: SunOS zfsnas 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris # zpool upgrade -v This system is currently running ZFS pool version 14. The following versions are supported: VER DESCRIPTION --- 1 Initial ZFS version 2 Ditto blocks (replicated metadata) 3 Hot spares and double parity RAID-Z 4 zpool history 5 Compression using the gzip algorithm 6 bootfs pool property 7 Separate intent log devices 8 Delegated administration 9 refquota and refreservation properties 10 Cache devices 11 Improved scrub performance 12 Snapshot properties 13 snapused property 14 passthrough-x aclinherit support For more information on a particular version, including supported releases, see: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/version/N Where 'N' is the version number. If the OS is at ZFS version 14, which I assume is the latest version, then my data pool presumably can't be using a newer version. So is there a bug, workaround or simple solution to this problem? If I could query the ZFS version of the unimported data pool that would be handy, but I suspect this is a bug anyway... Here's hoping for a quick reply as right now, I cannot access my data :((( Cheers, Simon http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/a-home-fileserver-using-zfs/ -- 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] Status/priority of 6761786
On Aug 28, 2009, at 12:15 AM, Dave wrote: Thanks, Trevor. I understand the RFE/CR distinction. What I don't understand is how this is not a bug that should be fixed in all solaris versions. In a former life, I worked at Sun to identify things like this that affect availability and lobbied to get them fixed. There are opposing forces at work: the functionality is correct as designed versus availability folks think it should go faster. It is difficult to build the case that code changes should be made for availability when other workarounds exist. It will be more fruitful for you to examine the implementation and see if there is a better way to improve the efficiencies of your snapshot processes. For example, the case can be made for a secondary data store containing long-term snapshots which can allow you to further optimize the primary data store for performance and availability. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Comstar and ESXi
Hello all, I am running an OpenSolaris server running 06/09. I installed comstar and enabled it. I have an ESXi 4.0 server connecting to Comstar via iscsi on its own switch. (There are two esxi servers), both of which do this regardless of whether one is on or off. The error I see is on esxi Lost connectivity to storage device naa.600144f030bc45004a9806980003. Path vmhba33:C0:T0:L0 is down. Affected datastores: Unknown. error 8/28/2009 11:10:34 AM This error occurs every 40 seconds and does not stop. I have disabled the iscsigt service and all other iscsi services and just enable the one for comstar. I have created target groups and host groups however to no avail the issue continues. Has anyone seen this issue I can give you other error logs if needed. Would I get the same result if I moved to Solaris 10 05/09? I also had the thought that it might be esxi 4 so I updated it but again to no avail. If anyone has any ideas it would be helpful! Thanks! Greg -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Solaris 10 5/09 ISCSI Target Issues
Hi, I have a zfs root Solaris 10 running on my home server. I created an ISCSI target in the following way: # zfs create -V 1g rpool2/iscsivol Turned on the shareiscsi property # zfs set shareiscsi=on rpool2/iscsivol # zfs list rpool2/iscsivol NAME USED AVAILREFER MOUNTPOINT rpool2/iscsivol 18K 19.9G 18K rpool2/iscsivol I am running into couple of issues here 1) Can't mount rpool2/iscsivol to another mountpoint such as /myiscsivol I understand this has something to do with -V flag creating a block device. Is there any workaround for this to mount it as volume? 2) I can connect to it through Windows XP Test machine with Windows ISCSI initiator, can copy files into it but from the solaris machine if I do format I do not get to see the volume listed. What am I missing? Thanks for all the help. -- 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] Status/priority of 6761786
Richard Elling wrote: On Aug 28, 2009, at 12:15 AM, Dave wrote: Thanks, Trevor. I understand the RFE/CR distinction. What I don't understand is how this is not a bug that should be fixed in all solaris versions. In a former life, I worked at Sun to identify things like this that affect availability and lobbied to get them fixed. There are opposing forces at work: the functionality is correct as designed versus availability folks think it should go faster. It is difficult to build the case that code changes should be made for availability when other workarounds exist. It will be more fruitful for you to examine the implementation and see if there is a better way to improve the efficiencies of your snapshot processes. For example, the case can be made for a secondary data store containing long-term snapshots which can allow you to further optimize the primary data store for performance and availability. -- richard This is unfortunate, but it seems this may be the only option if I want to import a pool within a reasonable amount of time. It's very frustrating to know that it can be fixed (evidenced by the S10U6 fix), but won't be fixed in Nevada/OpenSolaris - or so it seems. It may be filed as an RFE, but in my opinion it is most definitely a bug. -- Dave ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Status/priority of 6761786
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Dave wrote: Thanks, Trevor. I understand the RFE/CR distinction. What I don't understand is how this is not a bug that should be fixed in all solaris versions. Just to get the terminology right: CR means Change Request, and can refer to Defects (bugs) or RFE's. Defects have higher priority than RFE's, even though sometimes what makes something a defect vs. an RFE can be a bit subjective. But both bugs/defects and RFE's are CR's. Oh and it doesn't help both RFEs and CR are labelled bug at http://bugs.opensolaris.org/ That's not true. Bugs or Defects are distinct from RFEs. There's a Type pulldown on that site that lets you choose. But I would agree with the assertion that it doesn't help to have RFEs labelled with a Bug ID number. Regards, markm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Boot error
Well, what I ended up doing was reinstalling Solaris. Fortunately this is a
test box for now. I've repeatedly pulled both the root drive and the mirrored
drive. The system behaved as normal. The trick that worked for me was to
reinstall, but select both drives for zfs. Originally I selected only one
drive for zfs.
- Original Message
From: Grant Lowe gl...@sbcglobal.net
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:05:15 PM
Subject: [zfs-discuss] Boot error
I've got a 240z with Solaris 10 Update 7, all the latest patches from Sunsolve.
I've installed a boot drive with ZFS. I mirrored the drive with zpool. I
installed the boot block. The system had been working just fine. But for some
reason, when I try to boot, I get the error:
{1} ok boot -s
Boot device: /p...@1c,60/s...@2/d...@0,0 File and args: -s
SunOS Release 5.10 Version Generic_141414-08 64-bit
Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Division by Zero
{1} ok
Any ideas?
___
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] cannot import 'tank': pool is formatted using a newer ZFS version
Some more info that might help: I have the old IDE boot drive which I can reconnect if I get no help with this problem. I just hope it will allow me to import the data pool, as this is not guaranteed. Way back, I was using SXCE and the pool was upgraded to the latest ZFS version at the time. Then around May 2009 I installed OpenSolaris 2009.06 preview, which appeared a couple of weeks before the release of the final OpenSolaris 2009.06. I used Package Manager to update all packages etc. At some point I ran zpool upgrade on the data pool to bring it up to the latest ZFS version, as it was saying that it was not using the latest ZFS version when I did a zpool status on the pool. -- 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 commands hang after several zfs receives
Andrew Robert Nicols wrote: I've reported this in the past, and have seen a related thread but no resolution so far and I'm still seeing it. Any help really would be very much appreciated. We have three thumpers (X4500): * thumper0 - Running snv_76 * thumper1 - Running snv_121 * thumper2 - Running Solaris 10 update 7 Each has exactly the same disk and zpool configuration, and was bought at the same time. thumper0 sends snapshots hourly to thumpers 1 and 2. It is relatively stable. It's running a very old firmware but we aren't keen to update as this is our live service system. thumper1 regularly hangs during a receive - maybe after 1-2.5 days of hourly receives. All zfs commands on the filesystem receiving the data hang unrecoverably and only a hard system reset or a reboot -n (do not sync disks) will allow the machine to return to service. It's running the most recent system firmware. snip What can I do in an attempt to find out what is causing these lockups? I have a case open for this problem on Solaris 10u7. The case has been identified and I've just received an IDR,which I will test next week. I've been told the issue is fixed in update 8, but I'm not sure if there is an nv fix target. I'll post back once I've abused a test system for a while. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot import 'tank': pool is formatted using a newer ZFS version
Looks like my last IDE-based boot environment may have been pointing to the /dev package repository, so that might explain how the data pool version got ahead of the official 2009.06 one. Will try to fix the problem by pointing the SSD-based BE towards the dev repo and see if I get success. Will update this thread with my findings, although I expect it will work :) -- 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] snv_110 - snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool
Alan, Super find. Thanks, I thought I was just going crazy until I rolled back to 110 and the errors disappeared. When you do work out a fix, please ping me to let me know when I can try an upgrade again. Gary -- 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] snv_110 - snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool
On 28/08/2009, at 3:23 AM, Adam Leventhal wrote: There appears to be a bug in the RAID-Z code that can generate spurious checksum errors. I'm looking into it now and hope to have it fixed in build 123 or 124. Apologies for the inconvenience. Are the errors being generated likely to cause any significant problem running 121 with a RAID-Z volume or should users of RAID-Z* wait until this issue is resolved? cheers, James ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?
Hi, I've read a few articles about the lack of 'simple' raidz pool expansion capability in ZFS. I am interested in having a go at developing this functionality. Is anyone working on this at the moment? I'll explain what I am proposing. As mentioned in many forums, the concept is really simple: allow a raidz pool to grow by adding one or more disks to an existing pool. My intended user group is the consumer market, as opposed to the enterprise, so I expect I'll put some rather strict limitations on how/when this functionality will operate: to make the first implementation more achievable. The use case I will try and solve first is, what I see as, the simplest. I have a raidz pool configured with 1 file system on top; no snapshots. I want to add an additional disk (must be at least the same size as the rest of the disks in the pool). I don't mind if there is some downtime. I want all my data to take advantage of the additional disk. What is the benefit to the consumer? The answer is simple: - more flexibility in growing storage i.e. can have an odd number of disks. - more disk space available for use e.g. 2 pools of 3 disks gives less available space than 1 pool of 6 disks. - consistent with many RAID-5 implementations - opens up the consumer market for raidz: growable small backup/SAN/Home Theatre appliances I'm no expert on any of this stuff, but I do have many years experience as a software engineer. Is there a mentoring program that Sun offers so I can get some assistance when necessary? My expectation is that this isn't impossible to do but it isn't simple to do either. Are there any procedural hoops I need to jump through to take on this piece of work? Regards, Ty -- 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] Boot error
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 04:05:15PM -0700, Grant Lowe wrote:
I've got a 240z with Solaris 10 Update 7, all the latest patches from
Sunsolve. I've installed a boot drive with ZFS. I mirrored the drive with
zpool. I installed the boot block. The system had been working just fine.
But for some reason, when I try to boot, I get the error:
{1} ok boot -s
Boot device: /p...@1c,60/s...@2/d...@0,0 File and args: -s
SunOS Release 5.10 Version Generic_141414-08 64-bit
Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Division by Zero
{1} ok
My guess: s0 was to small when updating the boot archive.
So booting from a jumstart dir/CD, mounting s0 (e.g. to /a)
and running bootadm update-archive -R /a should fix the problem.
If you are low on space on /, manually
rm -f /a/platform/sun4u/boot_archive before doing the update-archive.
If still not enough space, try to move some other stuff temp. away,
e.g. /core , /etc/mail/cf ...
Good luck,
jel.
--
Otto-von-Guericke University http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/
Department of Computer Science Geb. 29 R 027, Universitaetsplatz 2
39106 Magdeburg, Germany Tel: +49 391 67 12768
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ub_guid_sum and vdev guids
I've a zfs pool named 'ppool' with two vdevs(files) file1, file2 in it. zdb -l /pak/file1 output: version=16 name='ppool' state=0 txg=3080 pool_guid=14408718082181993222 hostid=8884850 hostname='solaris-b119-44' top_guid=4867536591080553814 guid=4867536591080553814 vdev_tree type='file' id=0 guid=4867536591080553814 path='/pak/file1' metaslab_array=23 metaslab_shift=19 ashift=9 asize=68681728 is_log=0 zdb -l /pak/file2 output: version=16 name='ppool' state=0 txg=3081 pool_guid=14408718082181993222 hostid=8884850 hostname='solaris-b119-44' top_guid=4015976099930560107 guid=4015976099930560107 vdev_tree type='file' id=1 guid=4015976099930560107 path='/pak/file2' metaslab_array=27 metaslab_shift=19 ashift=9 asize=68681728 is_log=0 bash-3.2# zdb -uuu ppool Uberblock magic = 00bab10c version = 16 txg = 3082 guid_sum = 484548669948327 I see that the uber block ub_guid_sum is not equal to the sum of guid's of both the vdevs. Can someone please explain me why? Regards, pak -- 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] live upgrade with lots of zfs filesystems
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 casper@sun.com wrote: luactivate has been running for about 45 minutes. I'm assuming it will probably take at least the 1.5 hours of the lumount (particularly considering it appears to be running a lumount process under the hood) if not the 3.5 hours of lucreate. Eeeek, the luactivate command ended up taking about *7 hours* to complete. And I'm not sure it was even successful, output excerpts at the end of this message. Do you have a lot of files in /etc/mnttab, including nfs filesystems mounted from server1,server2:/path? There's only one nfs filesystem in vfstab which is always mounted, user home directories are automounted and would be in mnttab if accessed, but during the lu process no users were on the box. On the other hand, there are a *lot* of zfs filesytems in mnttab: # grep zfs /etc/mnttab | wc -l 8145 And you're using lucreate for a ZFS root? It should be quick; we are changing a number of things in Solaris 10 update 8 and we hope it will be faster/ lucreate on a system with *only* an os root pool is blazing (the magic of clones). The problem occurs when my data pool (with 6k odd filesystems) is also there. The live upgrade process is analyzing all 6k of those filesystems, mounting them all in the alternate root, unmounting them all, and who knows what else. This is totally wasted effort, those filesystems have nothing to do with the OS or patching, and I'm really hoping that they can just be completely ignored. So, after 7 hours, here is the last bit of output from luactivate. Other than taking forever and a day, all of the output up to this point seemed normal. The BE s10u6 is neither the currently active BE nor the one being made active, but these errors have me concerned something _bad_ might happen if I reboot :(. Any thoughts? Modifying boot archive service Propagating findroot GRUB for menu conversion. ERROR: Read-only file system: cannot create mount point /.alt.s10u6/export/group/ceis ERROR: failed to create mount point /.alt.s10u6/export/group/ceis for file system export/group/ceis ERROR: unmounting partially mounted boot environment file systems ERROR: No such file or directory: error unmounting ospool/ROOT/s10u6 ERROR: umount: warning: ospool/ROOT/s10u6 not in mnttab umount: ospool/ROOT/s10u6 no such file or directory ERROR: cannot unmount ospool/ROOT/s10u6 ERROR: cannot mount boot environment by name s10u6 ERROR: Failed to mount BE s10u6. ERROR: Failed to mount BE s10u6. Cannot propagate file /etc/lu/installgrub.findroot to BE File propagation was incomplete ERROR: Failed to propagate installgrub ERROR: Could not propagate GRUB that supports the findroot command. Activation of boot environment patch-20090817 successful. According to lustatus everything is good, but shiver... These boxes have only been in full production about a month, it would not be good for them to die during the first scheduled patches. # lustatus Boot Environment Is Active ActiveCanCopy Name Complete NowOn Reboot Delete Status -- -- - -- -- s10u6 yes no noyes- s10u6-20090413 yes yesnono - patch-20090817 yes no yes no - Tuanks... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu 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] live upgrade with lots of zfs filesystems
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Jens Elkner wrote: More info: http://iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~elkner/luc/lutrouble.html#luslow **sweet**!! This is *exactly* the functionality I was looking for. Thanks much Any Sun people have any idea if Sun has any similar functionality planned for live upgrade? Live upgrade without this capability is basically useless on a system with lots of zfs filesystems. Jens, thanks again, this is perfect. -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
