Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz recovery
On Mon 2010-12-13 (16:41), Marion Hakanson wrote: After you clear the errors, do another scrub before trying anything else. Once you get a complete scrub with no new errors (and no checksum errors), you should be confident that the damaged drive has been fully re-integrated into the pool. Ok I did a scrub after zero'ing, and the array came back clean, apparently, but same final result - the array faults as soon as I 'offline' a different vdev. The zero'ing is just a pretend-the-errors-aren't-there directive, and the scrub seems to be listening to that. What I need in this situation is a way to prompt ad6 to resilver from scratch. Btw I can reproduce this behaviour every time. I can also produce faultless behaviour by offlining and then onlining, or replacing disks repeatedly, as expected. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS send/receive while write is enabled on receive side?
On Dec 9, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Moazam Raja wrote: Hi all, from much of the documentation I've seen, the advice is to set readonly=on on volumes on the receiving side during send/receive operations. Is this still a requirement? I've been trying the send/receive while NOT setting the receiver to readonly and haven't seen any problems even though we're traversing and ls'ing the dirs within the receiving volume during the send/recv. So, is it OK to send/recv while having the receive volume write enabled? As others have mentioned, the changes can be automatically removed during the next receive. If that is ok, then it is ok. For NexentaStor's auto-sync service, by default, we do not mount the receiving file systems. We do offer an option to automatically clone the receiving file system snapshot, so you can have a writable copy that doesn't get destroyed by a future receive. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
We won't know until after Oracle releases Solaris 11 whether or not they'll live up to their promise to open the source to ZFSv31. Until Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in debating it. And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms of Oracle not really getting the point about open source development. That's how I feel - it will just be sad if they don't. There's no point arguing or bickering or guessing. They either will, or they won't, do the right thing. All we can do is hope. It would be a real shame if Oracle didn't simply open source the code. It's not as if there are any trade secrets left - the technology is well known. After all, Sun published the guts and they can't put the genie back in the lamp. So the principles of ZFS can be duplicated. But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. I think the goodwill generated would definitely offset any minor losses. I know that, as a person who's been a Solaris admin for almost 20 years and not generally a big fan of Oracle, it would certainly go a long way towards starting our new, enforced relationship off on a better foot. I have to say that given Oracle's track record I don't expect it. I fully expect them to lock it up as tight and proprietary as possible and charge everyone as much as they can, because what's important is The Last Penny On Earth. But I'm hoping I'm wrong and being overly pessimistic. Doug Linder -- Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merchantlink.com. THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and any attachments are proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not print, distribute, or copy this message or any attachments. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your computer. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 15:05 -0500, Linder, Doug wrote: We won't know until after Oracle releases Solaris 11 whether or not they'll live up to their promise to open the source to ZFSv31. Until Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in debating it. And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms of Oracle not really getting the point about open source development. That's how I feel - it will just be sad if they don't. There's no point arguing or bickering or guessing. They either will, or they won't, do the right thing. All we can do is hope. It would be a real shame if Oracle didn't simply open source the code. It's not as if there are any trade secrets left - the technology is well known. After all, Sun published the guts and they can't put the genie back in the lamp. So the principles of ZFS can be duplicated. But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. I think the goodwill generated would definitely offset any minor losses. I know that, as a person who's been a Solaris admin for almost 20 years and not generally a big fan of Oracle, it would certainly go a long way towards starting our new, enforced relationship off on a better foot. I have to say that given Oracle's track record I don't expect it. I fully expect them to lock it up as tight and proprietary as possible and charge everyone as much as they can, because what's important is The Last Penny On Earth. But I'm hoping I'm wrong and being overly pessimistic. Doug Linder -- I, for one, would be astonished if they (Oracle) GPL'd the relevant sections of code. It seems so out-of-character that I just can't wrap my brain around it. wink That said, I'd also be unhappy if they GPL'd it. I'd much rather just have Oracle keep contributing to the codebase they have now, and keep the community we've got interested. Which is at least reasonably possible, if not probable. Personally, I'm happy that there are at least /some/ things that *can't* be easily ported completely across the *BSD, Solaris, HPUX, AIX, and Linux world. I want a thriving multi-flavored UNIX ecosystem where STANDARDS are important, and each product has differentiation. Allowing everything to be sucked into Linux devolves into the Tragedy of the Commons, and we end up with LESS choice, and LESS innovation. Plus, it helps keep employed generalists like me, who know a good bit about several OSes, but only so much about any one. grin [ObDisclaimer: I work for Oracle, but the opinions expressed herein are solely my own, and contain no Oracle proprietary knowledge] -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-317 Phone: x67195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Linder, Doug wrote: But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. I think the goodwill generated Why do you want them to GPL ZFS? In what way would that save you annoyance? 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Erik Trimble wrote: I, for one, would be astonished if they (Oracle) GPL'd the relevant sections of code. It seems so out-of-character that I just can't wrap my brain around it. wink That said, I'd also be unhappy if they GPL'd it. I'd much rather just have Oracle keep contributing to the codebase they have now, and keep the community we've got interested. Which is at least reasonably GPL is actually a rather restrictive license. Perhaps it is better for Linux if it is GPLv2, but probably not if it is GPLv3. It is really not good for anything *but* Linux. 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Linder, Doug wrote: But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. I think the goodwill generated Why do you want them to GPL ZFS? In what way would that save you annoyance? I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily GPL'd. -Ross ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
bf == Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us writes: bf Perhaps it is better for Linux if it is GPLv2, but probably bf not if it is GPLv3. That's my understanding: GPLv3 is the one you would need to preserve software freedom under deals like NetApp-Oracle patent pact, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html#patent-protection but GPLv3 is not compatible with Linux because the kernel is GPLv2 but stupidly/stubbornly deleted the ``or any later version'' language, meaning GPLv3 is not any more Linux-compatible than CDDL. however given how widely-used binary modules are to supposedly get around the license incompatibility, many might consider the GPLv3 patent protections worth more than license compatibility, if your goal is software freedom, or a predictable future for your business. pgphyRH6AbXxf.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. If you just mean it should be open source, under CDDL that it's been using, then I agree whole heartedly. If you literally mean GPL, I disagree wholeheartedly. I'm trying to find a way to say this without provoking a CDDL vs GPL flame war, but it seems near impossible. Long story short, GPL is more restrictive, and grants fewer freedoms to whoever receives a copy of the product. Neither CDDL, nor GPL, nor any other license would bind Oracle any stronger. In any case, they grant rights to the world, which are irrevokable. In any case, Oracle and only Oracle is permitted to release future developments under different terms, or not released at all. They're the copyright holder, they can still do whatever they want, regardless of what rights they give you. The selection of CDDL vs GPL vs others is entirely a question of which rights they are willing to grant you. CDDL grants you more rights than GPL. In fact, that's the reason why CDDL is not GPL compatible. Because GPL is not compatible with other open-source licenses if the other licenses grant too many permissions to the recipient. Specifically: GPL prohibits the recipient from static linking with a closed-source product, or using closed-source build scripts. CDDL does not make that restriction. CDDL permits the recipient to build the CDDL code into a proprietary product, and only the original CDDL code and modifications to it must be open source and available under CDDL. All the other stuff that gets linked, and the build process itself, are permitted to be closed source. This is too permissive to be compatible with GPL. Again, none of those restrictions apply to the copyright holder. Oracle can do whatever they want, and link and modify with closed-source anything they want, regardless of what rights they grant you. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
In fact, that's the reason why CDDL is not GPL compatible. Because GPL is not compatible with other open-source licenses if the other licenses grant too many permissions to the recipient. Specifically: GPL prohibits the recipient from static linking with a closed-source product, or using closed-source build scripts. CDDL does not make that restriction. CDDL permits the recipient to build the CDDL code into a proprietary product, and only the original CDDL code and modifications to it must be open source and available under CDDL. All the other stuff that gets linked, and the build process itself, are permitted to be closed source. This is too permissive to be compatible with GPL. These reasons don't make CDDL incompatible with GPL. GPL is compatible with any license which is at least as permissive as itself. GPLv2 only requires that the recipient be able to receive all of the source code under terms which allow building new binaries (including based on modified source code) and distributed under similar terms. There might be some other reason that CDDL could be considered incompatible with GPL, but not the reasons you mentioned. I think that the reason that Linux does not want to pick up zfs is more a matter of control and philosophy than actual license incompatibility. 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
