Hi Victor,
I just woke up and checked my server and the delete operation has completed,
however I ran your command anyway and here is the output:
m...@server:~$ echo ::arc | pfexec mdb -k
hits = 352207629
misses= 2291912
demand_data_hits =
Tim, thanks, you were right, it looks like the destroy completed in about an
hour or so after the additional memory was added.
Much appreciated,
Marc
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Marc Emmerson wrote:
Hi Victor,
I just woke up and checked my server and the delete operation has completed,
however I ran your command anyway and here is the output:
If all is well, then requested information is no longer relevant ;-)
victor
Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
(The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden
license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the
Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Solaris kernel. I
There is only a need for a mind
Haudy Kazemi kaze0...@umn.edu wrote:
EON (Embedded ON) NAS (Network Attached Storage)
EON ver 0.60.0 is based on build 130
EON ver 0.59.9 is based on build 129
EON ver 0.59.5 is based on build 125
EON ver 0.59.4 is based on build 124
EON ver 0.59.3 is based on build 122
EON ver 0.59.2 is
From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:17 PM
(The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden
license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the
Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Solaris
Hi all,
yesterday I had to remove a zpool device due to controller errors (I
tried to replace the harddisk, but checksum errors occured again) so I
connected a fresh harddisk to another controller port.
Now I have the problem that zpool status looks as following:
r...@storage:~# zpool status
On Sun, August 15, 2010 21:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why
Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more
mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort
to ZFS and leave btrfs to die.
Or
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS, and
CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on. So ZFS steps
on a lot of linux peoples' toes. They already have code to do
On Mon, August 16, 2010 09:06, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS,
and CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on. So ZFS
steps on a lot of linux peoples' toes. They already have code to do this,
or that, why
Bump this up. Anyone?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com
wrote:
Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why
Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more
mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort
to
What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost
more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over $1,000
dollars, for what.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
I keep the pool version information up-to-date here:
http://blogs.sun.com/mmusante/entry/a_zfs_taxonomy
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
Hello,
This is a consolidated list of ZFS pool and filesystem versions, along with
the builds and systems they are found in. It is based on
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Matthias Appel wrote:
Can anybody tell me how to get rid of c1t3d0 and heal my zpool?
Can you do a zpool detach performance c1t3d0/o? If that works, then
zpool replace performance c1t3d0 c1t0d0 should replace the bad disk with
the new hot spare. Once the resilver
In general, ZFS can handle importing a pool from devices with different
paths. This has been true for many years.
On Aug 12, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote:
We are going to be migrating to a new EMC frame using Open Replicator.
I have no idea what Open Replicator is. Perhaps nobody
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:54:13PM -0700, Erast wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
retrospectively change
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarco mikej...@yahoo.com wrote:
What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost
more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over
$1,000 dollars, for what.
Because they include a motherboard and
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no
longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That
is not true. Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release
modifications if they wish to distribute it
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
retrospectively change the license on already released
Tim Cook wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
mailto:d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to
release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed BTRFS.
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it...
As such, they'll need to continue to
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed BTRFS.
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
kernel rather than die a
On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:48, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed BTRFS.
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
kernel rather than die a death of anonymity
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no
longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That
is not true. Anyone ELSE
On Mon, August 16, 2010 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to
release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
If he really believes this, then he seems to be
Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
If he really
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
own the code.
Ray's point is, how long would BTRFS remain in the Linux kernel in that case?
Such a
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
Why would they obviously want that? When the project started, they
were competing with Sun. They now own Solaris; they no longer have a
need to produce a competing product. I would be EXTREMELY surprised
to see Oracle continue to
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:58:20AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:08:52AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it
2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under
On Mon, August 16, 2010 11:01, Joerg Schilling wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as
they
own the code.
Ray's point is, how long would
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris
Cindy,
UID/GID on both are the same.
Do not want to use aumounter at this point.
Need to get it working first. Besides mounting the filesystem
Is not the issue.
The issue is writing to it.
Phillip
-Original Message-
From: Cindy Swearingen [mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com]
Sent:
Cindy,
I appreciate your help.
Understand the NFS server is Solaris 10
The Client is Solaris 9
Here what I see on the client system:
# mount -o rw server1:/nfs /nfs/backup
# cd /nfs/backup
# touch me
touch: me cannot create
# showmount -e server1
export list for server1:
/nfs (everyone)
#
Cindy,
I forgot to post the server NFS config.
# zpool status
pool: nfs
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
nfs ONLINE 0 0 0
Cindy,
I will agree with NFS statement.
No this is not a tmp or lofs mount. I am very clear on what it is.
This is a ZFS filesystem being exported.
This was mounted as root and needs to be. Standard permission applied.
Tested as root. No other permission needs to be checked. But since you
Hi Phillip,
What's the permissions on the directory where you try to write to, and
what user are you using on the client system, it's most likely a UID
mapping issue between the client and the server.
/peter
On 8/14/10 3:19 , Phillip Bruce wrote:
I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS
On 8/14/10 11:49 , Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) wrote:
Peter,
what would you expect for root?
That is the user I am at.
root is default mapped to annon, if you don't specifically export it
with the option to allow root on one or more clients to be mapped to
local root on the server.
zfs
Peter,
what would you expect for root?
That is the user I am at.
Like I already stated it is NOT a UID or GUID issue.
Both systems are the same.
Phillip
From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:23 PM
To:
Peter,
Ah!!! that my problem, thanks for the tip. i agree and did not explicidly
export
to allow that host for rw.
Phillip
From: Peter Karlsson [peter.k.karls...@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:21 PM
To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource)
Cc:
Peter,
Thanks for the suggestions, I'm getting closer to solving the problem.
it definitely works when using anon setting. I can read / write to the
filesystem all day
long. But as you mentioned using anon is a bad idea and a security risk.
Something I get my hand slapped with keeping this in
Hi,
I am having trouble with a 8 disk raidz2 pool. Last week I noticed any
commands that were accessing the pool's filesystems would hang (ls, df
etc...). The logs showed some read errors for two of the drives. I had
to power cycle the machine since I could not shut it down cleanly. After
The problem is: The first time the a software release is considered
stable, it takes significant time for the uptake and the moment it's
really stable. ZFS was introduced almost 5 years ago to the public and
just now it gets mayor uptake in the field. I still don't get it, why
brtfs should be
Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial
Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent.
Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the
Solaris code quality.
I think code quality has nothing to do with open-sourcing
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:15:12AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that
states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he
was a part of for five years.
The business motivation would be to set the competition back a
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
The real question is, WHY would they do it? What would be the business
motivation here? Chris Mason would most likely leave Oracle, Red Hat
would hire him and fork the last GPL'd version of btrfs and Oracle
would have relegated itself to a non-player in the
Tim Cook wrote:
2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
mailto:codest...@osunix.org
Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
mailto:codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already
I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
before Oracle's cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my decision.
Us too. :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
Tim Cook wrote:
2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org mailto:
codest...@osunix.org
Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
mailto:codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee
On Mon, Aug 16 at 8:52, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed BTRFS.
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part
On Mon, Aug 16 at 11:15, Tim Cook wrote:
Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that states
if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he was a part
of for five years.
IANAL, but as my discussions with employment lawyers in my state have
explained
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
can put a different (non-OSS) license on any
On Sun, August 15, 2010 09:19, David Magda wrote:
On Aug 14, 2010, at 14:54, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Russ Price
For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of
being prohibitively expensive.
I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. $400/yr does move it out of
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
insults. Oracle can pull the plug at any time they choose. *ONE* developer
from Redhat does not change the fact that Oracle owns the rights to the
majority of the code, and can relicense it, or discontinue code updates, as
they see fit.
It would be most
I don't know much about JET, but a jumpstart install of a system with a
zfs root will do the necessary disk formatting. The profile keywords
that describe the disk layout work more or less the same for zfs as they
do for ufs, subject to the ways that zfs is different from ufs (you
don't
Well, a typical conversation about speed and stability usually boils down
to this:
A: I've heard that XYZ is unstable and slow.
B: Are you sure? Have you tested XYZ? What are your benchmark results?
Have you had any issues?
A: No. I *have* *not* *tested* XYZ. I think XYZ is so unstable and slow
Andrej Podzimek and...@podzimek.org wrote:
P. S. As far as Phoronix is concerned... Well, I remember how they once used
a malfunctioning and crippled Reiser4 implementation (hacked by the people
around the ZEN patchset so that it caused data corruption (!) and kernel
crashes) and compared
On Mon, August 16, 2010 15:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I know of ext* performance checks where people did run gtar to unpack a
linux
kernel archive and these people did nothing but metering the wall clock
time
for gtar.
I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start to
write
to the disk when gtar finished.
As a test of ext? performance, that does seem to be lacking something!
I guess it's a consequence of the low sound levels of modern disk
pj == Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com writes:
gd == Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com writes:
cb == C Bergström codest...@osunix.org writes:
fc == Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net writes:
tc == Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:
pj Given that both provide similar
dd 2 * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle. All rights reserved.
dd 3 *
dd 4 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
dd 5 * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
dd 6 * License v2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
dd
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet
However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they
must
release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL.
When a copyright holder releases something
On 08/16/2010 10:35 AM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarcomikej...@yahoo.com wrote:
What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller cards cost
more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some cards can cost over $1,000
dollars, for what.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we
can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned
the copyright to some other party.
BTRFS is inside the linux kernel.
Copyright (C)
see, that's good, and is a realistic future scenario for ZFS, AFAICT:
there can be a branch that's safe to collaborate on, which cannot go
into Solaris 11 and cannot be taken proprietary by Nexenta, either.
In fact, we are in the process of creating a non-profit foundation for
Illumos
On 8/16/2010 3:57 PM, Russ Price wrote:
On 08/16/2010 10:35 AM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mike DeMarcomikej...@yahoo.com
wrote:
What I would really like to know is why do pci-e raid controller
cards cost more than an entire motherboard with processor. Some
cards
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.comwrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we
can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned
the
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
can
Hi,
I am surprised with the performances of some 64-bit multi-threaded applications
on my AMD Opteron machine. For most of the applications, the performance of
32-bit version is almost same as the performance of 64-bit version. However,
for a couple of applications, 32-bit versions provide
It can be as simple as impact on the cache. 64-bit programs tend to be
bigger, and so they have a worse effect on the i-cache.
Unless your program does something that can inherently benefit from
64-bit registers, or can take advantage of the richer instruction set
that is available to amd64
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 21:58, Kishore Kumar Pusukuri
kish...@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
Hi,
I am surprised with the performances of some 64-bit multi-threaded
applications on my AMD Opteron machine. For most of the applications, the
performance of 32-bit version is almost same as the performance of
I have a disk which is 1/2 of a boot disk mirror from a failed system
that I would like to extract some data from. So i install the disk to a
test system and do:
zpool import -R /mnt -f rpool bertha
which gives me:
bertha102G 126G84K /mnt/bertha
On 16 Aug 2010, at 22:30, Robert Hartzell wrote:
cd /mnt ; ls
bertha export var
ls bertha
boot etc
where is the rest of the file systems and data?
By default, root filesystems are not mounted. Try doing a zfs mount
bertha/ROOT/snv_134___
The root filesystem on the root pool is set to 'canmount=noauto' so
you need to manually mount it first using 'zfs mount dataset name'.
Then run 'zfs mount -a'.
- George
On 08/16/10 07:30 PM, Robert Hartzell wrote:
I have a disk which is 1/2 of a boot disk mirror from a failed system
that
On 08/16/10 07:39 PM, Mark Musante wrote:
On 16 Aug 2010, at 22:30, Robert Hartzell wrote:
cd /mnt ; ls
bertha export var
ls bertha
boot etc
where is the rest of the file systems and data?
By default, root filesystems are not mounted. Try doing a zfs mount
bertha/ROOT/snv_134
This
On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux?
___
zfs-discuss
On 08/16/10 07:47 PM, George Wilson wrote:
The root filesystem on the root pool is set to 'canmount=noauto' so you
need to manually mount it first using 'zfs mount dataset name'. Then
run 'zfs mount -a'.
- George
mounting the dataset failed because the /mnt dir was not empty and zfs
mount
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack
frank+lists/z...@linetwo.netwrote:
On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
You're saying Oracle wants to
On Sunday 15 August 2010 11:56:22 Joerg Moellenkamp wrote:
And by the way: Wasn't there a
comment of Linus Torvals recently that people shound move their
low-quality code into the codebase ??? ;)
Yeah, those codes should be put into the staging part of the codebase, so
that (more) people
Robert Hartzell wrote:
On 08/16/10 07:47 PM, George Wilson wrote:
The root filesystem on the root pool is set to 'canmount=noauto' so you
need to manually mount it first using 'zfs mount dataset name'. Then
run 'zfs mount -a'.
- George
mounting the dataset failed because the /mnt dir was
85 matches
Mail list logo
