Hi,
This is what we are trying to understand.
Luns are presented to the CDOM and then we create the zpool on them.
On top of the zpool zvol is created and then it is presented to the GDOM.
zpool list | grep testpool
testpool12G 114K 12.0G 0% ONLINE -
zfs list | grep testpool
perhaps this helps:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Oracle-Explains-Unclear-Message-About-OpenSolaris-444787/
Michael
On 02/24/10 20:02, Troy Campbell wrote:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html
Half way down it says:
Will Oracle
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Michael Schuster
michael.schus...@sun.com wrote:
perhaps this helps:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Oracle-Explains-Unclear-Message-About-OpenSolaris-444787/
Not really. It doesn't explain that the page in question was an
explanation of how the
tomwaters tomwat...@chadmail.com writes:
I created a zfs file system, cloud/movies and shared it.
I then filled it with movies and music.
I then decided to rename it, so I used rename in the Gnome to change
the folder name to media...ie cloud/media. MISTAKE
I then noticed the zfs share
Yes, I am glad that I learned this lesson now, rather than in 6 months when I
have re-purposed the exiting drives...makes me all the more committed to
maintaining an up to date remote backup.
The reality is that I can not afford to mirror the 8TB in the zpool, so I'll
balance the risk and just
Hi james,
thanks for the reply, stating this is there a way i can restirct the size of
the zvol.
So if i have the zvol of 10 GB on the CDOM, which is presented to the LDOM
as the disk and then we create the UFS file system on that, but this grows
with time and we eve see the situation where it
It's a kind gesture to say it'll continue to exist and all, but
without commercial support from the manufacturer, it's relegated to
hobbyist curiosity status for us. If I even mentioned using an
unsupported operating system to the higherups here, it'd be considered
absurd. I like free stuff to
On 17/02/2010 09:55, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 16/02/2010 23:59, Christo Kutrovsky wrote:
On ZVOLs it appears the setting kicks in life. I've tested this by
turning it off/on and testing with iometer on an exported iSCSI
device (iscsitgtd not comstar).
I haven't looked at zvol's code
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:59 AM, tomwaters tomwat...@chadmail.com wrote:
Yes, I am glad that I learned this lesson now, rather than in 6 months when I
have re-purposed the exiting drives...makes me all the more committed to
maintaining an up to date remote backup.
The reality is that I can
Just an update on this, I was seeing high CPU utilisation (100% on all 4 cores)
for ~10 seconds every 20 seconds when transfering files to the server using
Samba under 133.
So I rebooted and selected 111b and I no longer have the issue. Interestingly,
the rpool is still in place..as it should
Bob,
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
and what uname -s reports.
It will surely report OrkOS.
For OpenSolaris, OracOS - surely there must be Blakes 7 fans in Oracle
Corp.?
I am glad to be able to contribute positively and constructively to
this discussion.
Metoo ;-) ...
On 25/02/2010 12:48, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 17/02/2010 09:55, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 16/02/2010 23:59, Christo Kutrovsky wrote:
On ZVOLs it appears the setting kicks in life. I've tested this by
turning it off/on and testing with iometer on an exported iSCSI
device (iscsitgtd not
On 25 Feb 2010, at 14:28, Sean Sprague wrote:
Bob,
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
and what uname -s reports.
It will surely report OrkOS.
For OpenSolaris, OracOS - surely there must be Blakes 7 fans in Oracle
Corp.?
You can see all the working bits courtesy of
On Feb 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Jacob Ritorto jacob.rito...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's a kind gesture to say it'll continue to exist and all, but
without commercial support from the manufacturer, it's relegated to
I'm looking to migrate a pool from using multiple smaller LUNs to one larger
LUN. I don't see a way to do a zpool replace for multiple to one. Anybody know
how to do this? It needs to be non disruptive.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
On 25/02/2010 15:44, Chad wrote:
I'm looking to migrate a pool from using multiple smaller LUNs to one larger
LUN. I don't see a way to do a zpool replace for multiple to one. Anybody know
how to do this? It needs to be non disruptive.
You can't do that just now, this needs device removal
You might have to force the import with -f.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I'm looking to migrate a pool from using multiple smaller LUNs to one larger
LUN.
I don't see a way to do a zpool replace for multiple to one. Anybody know how
to do this? It needs to be non disruptive.
Depends on the zpool's layout and the source of the old and the new files;
you can only
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Chad chad.har...@allstate.com wrote:
I'm looking to migrate a pool from using multiple smaller LUNs to one
larger LUN. I don't see a way to do a zpool replace for multiple to one.
Anybody know how to do this? It needs to be non disruptive.
As others have
On Thu, February 25, 2010 08:25, tomwaters wrote:
So I rebooted and selected 111b and I no longer have the issue.
Interestingly, the rpool is still in place..as it should be. So I have
now set this 111b as my default BE ...and removed /dev from the update
package list using ...
$pfexec pkg
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Gregory Gee wrote:
files
files/home
files/mail
files/VM
I want to move the files/VM to another zpool, but keep the same mount
point. What would be the right steps to create the new zpool, move the
data and mount in the same spot?
Create the new pool, take a snapshot
I don't think I have seen this addressed in the follow-ups to your message.
One issue we have is with deploying large numbers of files systems per pool
- not necessarily large numbers of disk. There are major scaling issues
with the sharing of large numbers of file systems, in my configuration I
Ray,
Log removal integrated into build 125, so yes, if you upgraded to at
least OpenSolaris build 125 you could fix this problem. See the syntax
below on my b133 system.
In this particular case, importing the pool from b125 or later media
and attempting to remove the log device could not fix
Well, it doesn't seem like this is possible -- I was hoping there was
some hacky way to do it via zdb or something.
Sun support pointed me to a document[1] that leads me to believe this
might have worked on OpenSolaris. Anyone out there in Sun-land care to
comment?
To recap, I accidentally
One other question - I'm seeing the same sort of behavior when I try to do
something like zfs set sharenfs=off storage/fs - is there a reason that
turning off NFS sharing should halt I/O?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:55:35AM -0800, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
Ray,
Log removal integrated into build 125, so yes, if you upgraded to at
least OpenSolaris build 125 you could fix this problem. See the syntax
below on my b133 system.
In this particular case, importing the pool from b125
+--
| On 2010-02-25 12:05:03, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
|
| Thanks Cindy. I need to stay on Solaris 10 for the time being, so I'm
| guessing I'd have to Live boot into an OpenSolaris build, fix my pool
| then hope it
I've been surveying various forums looking for other places using ZFS ACL's
in production to compare notes and see how if at all they've handled some
of the issues we've found deploying them.
So far, I haven't found anybody using them in any substantial way, let
alone trying to leverage them to
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:57:08AM +, li...@di.cx wrote:
2 x SuperMicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 SATA controllers (so 16 ports in total,
plus 6 on the motherboard)
What about case space for the disks?
Disks: 3x40GB
rpool mirror and spare on shelf. 3 way mirror if you really want and have the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/24/2010 11:42 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
mi...@r600:~# ls -li /bin/bash
1713998 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 799040 2009-10-30 00:41 /bin/bash
mi...@r600:~# zdb -v rpool/ROOT/osol-916 1713998
Dataset rpool/ROOT/osol-916 [ZPL], ID 302, cr_txg
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Alastair Neil wrote:
I don't think I have seen this addressed in the follow-ups to your message. One
issue we have is with deploying large numbers of files systems per pool - not
necessarily large numbers of disk. There are major scaling issues with the
sharing
of large
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Shane Cox wrote:
I'm new to ZFS and looking for some assistance with a performance problem:
At the interval of zfs_txg_timeout (I'm using the default of 30), I observe
100-200ms
pauses in my application. Based on my application log files, it appears that
the
write()
I do not know and I don't think anyone would deploy a system in that way
with UFS. This is the model that is imposed in order to take full advantage
of zfs advanced features such as snapshots, encryption and compression and I
know many universities in particular are eager to adopt it for just
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Alastair Neil wrote:
I do not know and I don't think anyone would deploy a system in that way with
UFS.
This is the model that is imposed in order to take full advantage of zfs
advanced
features such as snapshots, encryption and compression and I know many
universities
So just to verify, from what you said and searching based on what you said, the
following is the commands I would use?
# zpool create newpool mirror c8d0 c9d0
# zfs create newpool/VM
# zfs snapshot files/v...@beforemigration
# zfs send files/v...@beforemigration | zfs receive newpool/VM
# zfs
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Marion Hakanson wrote:
It's not easy to get them right, and usually the hardest task is in
figuring out what the users want, so we don't use them unless the users'
needs cannot be met using traditional Unix/POSIX permissions.
We've got a web GUI that hides the complexity
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Marion Hakanson wrote:
It's not easy to get them right, and usually the hardest task is in
figuring out what the users want, so we don't use them unless the users'
needs cannot be met using traditional Unix/POSIX permissions.
Yeah, I've had nothing but horror from
37 matches
Mail list logo
