Does 'zpool attach' enough for a root pool?
I mean, does it install GRUB bootblocks on the disk?
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Tommaso,
Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 1:04:06 PM, you wrote:
the root filesystem of my thumper is a ZFS with a single
Have you ever used a Mac? HFS has had these features for years.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Bryan Wagoner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, having a database on top of an FS is really useful. It's a Content
Addressable Storage system.One of the problem home users have is that
they
On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 AM, Bakul Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that I don't wish to argue for/against zfs/billtodd but
the comment above about no *real* opensource software
alternative zfs automating checksumming and simple
snapshotting caught my eye.
There is an open source alternative
On Dec 5, 2007 9:54 PM, Brian Lionberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create two zfs's on one pool of four disks with two mirrors, such as...
/
zpool create tank mirror disk1 disk2 mirror disk3 disk4
zfs create tank/fs1
zfs create tank/fs2/
Are fs1 and fs2 striped across all four disks?
Yes
Does anybody know if the upcoming CIFS integration in b77 will
provide a mechanism for users to see snapshots (like .zfs/snapshot/
does for NFS)?
--
Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
___
zfs-discuss
On 29/10/2007, Tek Bahadur Limbu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I created a ZFS file system like the following with /mypool/cache being
the partition for the Squid cache:
18:51:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
mypool 478M
On 16/10/2007, Renato Ferreira de Castro - Sun Microsystems - Gland Switzerland
What he try to do :
---
- re-mount and umount manually, then try to destroy.
# mount -F zfs zpool_dokeos1/dokeos1/home /mnt
# umount /mnt
# zfs destroy dokeos1_pool/dokeos1/home
cannot
On 16/10/2007, Michael Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
When jumpstarting s10x_u4_fcs onto a machine, I have a postinstall script
which does:
zpool create tank c1d0s7 c2d0s7 c3d0s7 c4d0s7
zfs create tank/data
zfs set mountpoint=/data tank/data
zpool export -f tank
Try without the '-f'
On 11/10/2007, Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, they aren't (i.e. zoneadm clone on S10u4 doesn't use zfs snapshots).
I have a workaround I'm about to blog
Here it is - hopefully be of some use:
http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/10/11/fast-zone-cloning-on-solaris-10
No, they aren't (i.e. zoneadm clone on S10u4 doesn't use zfs snapshots).
I have a workaround I'm about to blog, the gist of which is
make the 'template' zone on zfs
boot, configure, etc.
zonecfg -z template detach
zfs snapshot tank/zones/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
zfs clone tank/zones/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Thomas
the point I was making was that you'll see low performance figures
with 100 concurrent threads. If you set nthreads to something closer
to your expected load, you'll get a more accurate figure.
Also, there's a new filebench out now, see
I had some trouble installing a zone on ZFS with S10u4
(bug in the postgres packages) that went away when I used a
ZVOL-backed UFS filesystem
for the zonepath.
I thought I'd push on with the experiment (in the hope Live Upgrade
would be able to upgrade such a zone).
It's a bit unwieldy, but
On 30/09/2007, William Papolis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK,
I guess using this ...
set md:mirrored_root_flag=1
for Solaris Volume Manager (SVM) is not supported and could cause problems.
I guess it's back to my first idea ...
With 2 disks, setup three SDR's (State Database
On 04/10/2007, Nathan Kroenert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Client A
- import pool make couple-o-changes
Client B
- import pool -f (heh)
Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie ^Mpanic[cpu0]/thread=ff0002b51c80:
Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 603766 kern.notice] assertion
failed: dmu_read(os,
On 30/09/2007, William Papolis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henk,
By upgrading do you mean, rebooting and installing Open Solaris from DVD or
Network?
Like, no Patch Manager install some quick patches and updates and a quick
reboot, right?
You can live upgrade and then do a quick reboot:
On 26/09/2007, Christopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm about to build a fileserver and I think I'm gonna use OpenSolaris and ZFS.
I've got a 40GB PATA disk which will be the OS disk,
Would be nice to remove that as a SPOF.
I know ZFS likes whole disks, but I wonder how much would performance
Bah, wrong list.
A timeline would be really nice for when this is likely to be sorted
out - higher
priority than ZFS root IMO.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Sep 2007 23:21
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] zoneadm clone doesn't support ZFS
I've got 12Gb or so of db+web in a zone on a ZFS filesystem on a mirrored zpool.
Noticed during some performance testing today that its i/o bound but
using hardly
any CPU, so I thought turning on compression would be a quick win.
I know I'll have to copy files for existing data to be compressed,
On 11/09/2007, Mike DeMarco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got 12Gb or so of db+web in a zone on a ZFS
filesystem on a mirrored zpool.
Noticed during some performance testing today that
its i/o bound but
using hardly
any CPU, so I thought turning on compression would be
a quick win.
I've found it's fairly easy to trim down a 'core' install, installing
to a temporary UFS root,
doing the ufs - zfs thing, and then re-use the old UFS slice as swap.
Obviously you need a separate /boot slice in this setup.
On 03/07/07, Douglas Atique [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid the
Thanks to everyone for the sanity check - I think
it's a platform issue, but not an endian one.
The stick was originally DOS-formatted, and the zpool was built on the first
fdisk partition. So Sparcs aren't seeing it, but the x86/x64 boxes are.
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of
I used a zpool on a usb key today to get some core files off a non-networked
Thumper running S10U4 beta.
Plugging the stick into my SXCE b61 x86 machine worked fine; I just had to
'zpool import sticky' and it worked ok.
But when we attach the drive to a blade 100 (running s10u3), it sees the
On 08/06/07, BVK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/8/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-)
I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their
Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris.
I think that's
On 24/05/07, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know about FreeBSD PORTS, but NetBSD's ports system works very
well on solaris. The only thing I didn't like about it is it considers
gcc a dependency to certain things, so even though I have Studio 11
installed, it would insist on
allyourbase
Take off every ZIL!
http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/02/12/zil-communication
/allyourbase
On 22/05/07, Albert Chin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin
Hi Malachi
Tims SMF bits work well (and also supports remote backups (via send/recv)).
I use something like the process laid out at the bottom of:
http://blogs.sun.com/mmusante/entry/rolling_snapshots_made_easy
because it's dirt-simple and easily understandable.
On 10/05/07, Malachi de
On 17/04/07, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT
want to release a ZFS under the GPL
Not to mention the knock-on effects of those already using ZFS (apple, BSD)
who would be adversely affected by a GPL license.
--
On 13/04/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of
Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL
applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it
has absolutely nothing to say about what you
On 13/04/07, Lori Alt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sparc support is in the works. We're waiting on some other development
work going on right now in the area of sparc booting in general
(not specific to zfs booting, although the zfs boot loader
is part of that project). I can't give you a date
Just saw a message on xen-discuss that HVM is in the next version (b60-ish).
On 15/03/07, Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't Solaris dom0 does Pacifica (amd-v) yet.
That would rule out windows for now.
You can run centOS zones on SXCR.
That just leaves freebsd (which hasn't got
I don't Solaris dom0 does Pacifica (amd-v) yet.
That would rule out windows for now.
You can run centOS zones on SXCR.
That just leaves freebsd (which hasn't got fantastic xen support either,
despite Kip Macys excellent work).
Unless you've got an app that needs that, zones sound like a much
On 12/03/07, Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
On March 11, 2007 6:05:13 PM + Tim Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* ability to add disks to mirror the root filesystem at any time,
should they become available
OSX *loves* NFS - it's a lot faster than Samba - but
you need a bit of extra work.
You need a user on the other end with the right uid and gid
(assuming you're using NFSv3 - you probably are).
Have a look at :
Have a look at:
http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/a_little_zfs_hack
On 27/01/07, roland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it planned to add some other compression algorithm to zfs ?
lzjb is quite good and especially performing very well, but i`d like to have
better compression (bzip2?) - no matter
On 25/01/07, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The other point is, how many other volume management systems allow you to remove
disks? I bet if the answer is not zero, it's not large. ;)
Even Linux LVM can do this (with pvmove) - slow, but you can do it online.
--
Rasputin :: Jack
On 23/01/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you pick another name for this please because that name has already
been suggested for zfs(1) where the argument is a directory in an
existing ZFS file system and the result is that the directory becomes a
new ZFS file system while
On 25/01/07, Adam Leventhal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 08:52:47PM +, Dick Davies wrote:
that's an excellent feature addition, look forward to it.
Will it be accompanied by a 'zfs join'?
Out of curiosity, what will you (or anyone else) use this for? If the idea
On 15/01/07, Rick McNeal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
For the record, the reason I asked was we have an iscsi target host
with
2 NICs and for some reason clients were attempting to connect to
the targets
on the private interface instead
On 18/01/07, Jeremy Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how
useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of
nice to have?
It's very useful if you accidentally create a concat rather than mirror
of an existing zpool.
On 15/01/07, Rick McNeal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
Hi, are there currently any plans to make an iSCSI target created by
setting shareiscsi=on on a zvol
bindable to a single interface (setting tpgt or acls)?
We're working on some more
Hi, are there currently any plans to make an iSCSI target created by
setting shareiscsi=on on a zvol
bindable to a single interface (setting tpgt or acls)?
I can cobble something together with ipfilter,
but that doesn't give me enough granularity to say something like:
'host a can see target 1,
On 06/09/06, Eric Schrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 04:23:32PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
a) prevent attempts to create zvols in non-global zones
b) somehow allow it (?) or
c) Don't do That
I vote for a) myself - should I raise an RFE?
Yes, that was _supposed_
On 02/12/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 2, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 2, 2006, at 6:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you have subtle corruption, some of the data and meta data
On 30/11/06, Michael Barto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to update some of our Solaris 10 OS systems to the new zfs file
system that supports spares. The Solaris 6/06 version does have zfs but does
not have this feature. What is the best way to upgrade to this functionality?
Hot
On 28/11/06, Terence Patrick Donoghue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a difference - Yep,
'legacy' tells ZFS to refer to the /etc/vfstab file for FS mounts and
options
whereas
'none' tells ZFS not to mount the ZFS filesystem at all. Then you would
need to manually mount the ZFS using 'zfs set
Is there a difference between setting mountpoint=legacy and mountpoint=none?
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
zoneadm: zone ganesh failed to verify
vera / # zfs set mountpoint=none tank/delegated/ganesh
vera / # zoneadm -z ganesh boot
vera / #
On 28/11/06, Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a difference between setting mountpoint=legacy and mountpoint=none?
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades
On 16/11/06, Peter Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there some way to dump all information from a ZFS filesystem? I suppose I
*could* backup the raw disk devices that is used by the zpool but that'll eat up a lot of
tape space...
If you want to have another copy somewhere, use zfs
On 14/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, we have considered this. On both SPARC and x86, there will be
a way to specify the root file system (i.e., the bootable dataset) to be
booted,
at either the GRUB prompt (for x86) or the OBP prompt (for SPARC).
If no root file
On 15/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose it depends how 'catastrophic' the failture is, but if it's
very low level,
booting another root probabyl won't help, and if it's too high level, how will
you detect it (i.e. you've booted the kernel, but it is buggy).
If it
On 01/11/06, Adam Leventhal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick McNeal and I have been working on building support for sharing ZVOLs
as iSCSI targets directly into ZFS. Below is the proposal I'll be
submitting to PSARC. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Adam
Am I right in thinking we're
On 01/11/06, Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And we'll be able to use sparse zvols
for this too (can't think why we couldn't, but it'd be dead handy)?
Thinking about this, we won't be able to (without some changes) -
I think a target is zero-filled before going online
(educated guess
On 01/11/06, Rick McNeal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I too must be missing something. I can't imagine why it would take 5
minutes to online a target. A ZVOL should automatically be brought
online since now initialization is required.
s/now/no/ ?
Thanks for the explanation. The '5 minute online'
On 27/10/06, Christopher Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can manually set up a ZFS root environment but it requires a UFS
partition to boot off of.
See: http://blogs.sun.com/tabriz/entry/are_you_ready_to_rumble
There's a slightly improved procedure at
I started sharing out zfs filesystems via NFS last week using
sharenfs=on. That seems to work fine until I reboot. Turned
out the NFS server wasn't enabled - I had to enable
nfs/server, nfs/lockmgr and nfs/status manually. This is a stock
SXCR b49 (ZFS root) install - don't think I'd changed
On 24/10/06, Eric Schrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:01:21PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
Shouldn't a ZFS share be permanently enabling NFS?
# svcprop -p application/auto_enable nfs/server
true
This property indicates that regardless of the current
On 14/10/06, Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the warnings I've heard no longer apply?
If so, that's great. Thanks for all replies.
Umm, which warnings? The don't import a pool on two hosts at once
definitely still applies.
Sure :)
I meant the reason I'd heard
( at
On 12/10/06, Michael Schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ceri Davies wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:06:15PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
I'd expect:
zpool import -f
(see the manpage)
to probe /dev/dsk/ and rebuild the zpool.cache file,
but my understanding is that this a) doesn't work
On 11/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dick Davies wrote:
On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to
find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10.
I tried that myself
On 12/10/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, /etc/zfs/zpool.cache just tells us what pools to open when you boot
up. Everything else (mountpoints, filesystems, etc) is stored in the
pool itself.
Does anyone know of any plans or strategies to remove this dependancy?
--
Rasputin
On 12/10/06, Michael Schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James C. McPherson wrote:
Dick Davies wrote:
On 12/10/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, /etc/zfs/zpool.cache just tells us what pools to open when you boot
up. Everything else (mountpoints, filesystems, etc) is stored
On 12/10/06, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:49:48PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
FYI, /etc/zfs/zpool.cache just tells us what pools to open when you boot
up. Everything else (mountpoints, filesystems, etc) is stored in the
pool itself.
What happens if the
On 05/10/06, Richard Elling - PAE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dick Davies wrote:
I very foolishly decided to mirror /grub using SVM
(so I could boot easily if a disk died). Shrank swap partitions
to make somewhere to keep the SVM database (2 copies on each
disk).
D'oh!
N.B. this isn't
Would 'zfs snapshot -r poolname' achieve what you want?
On 29/09/06, Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to create a snapshot, for ZFS send purposes, of an entire pool ?
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
That looks a bit serious - did you say both disks are on
the same SATA controller?
On 19/09/06, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# zpool status -v
pool: tank
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
corruption. Applications may be
On 13/09/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dick Davies wrote:
But they raise a lot of administrative issues
Sure, especially if you choose to change the copies property on an
existing filesystem. However, if you only set it at filesystem creation
time (which is the recommended
Since we were just talking about resilience on laptops,
I wondered if it there had been any progress in sorting
some of the glitches that were involved in:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=25144#25144
?
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
On 12/09/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a proposal for a new 'copies' property which would allow
different levels of replication for different filesystems.
Your comments are appreciated!
Flexibility is always nice, but this seems to greatly complicate things,
both
On 12/09/06, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dick Davies wrote:
The only real use I'd see would be for redundant copies
on a single disk, but then why wouldn't I just add a disk?
Some systems have physical space for only a single drive - think most
laptops!
True - I'm a laptop
On 12/09/06, Celso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the great things about zfs, is that it protects not just against
mechanical failure, but against silent data corruption. Having this available
to laptop owners seems to me to be important to making zfs even more attractive.
I'm not arguing
On 12/09/06, Celso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...you split one disk in two. you then have effectively two partitions which
you can then create a new mirrored zpool with. Then everything is mirrored.
Correct?
Everything in the filesystems in the pool, yes.
With ditto blocks, you can
On 12/09/06, Celso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it has already been said that in many peoples experience, when a disk
fails, it completely fails. Especially on laptops. Of course ditto blocks
wouldn't help you in this situation either!
Exactly.
I still think that silent data
Just did my first dataset delegation, so be gentle :)
Was initially terrified to see that changes to the mountpoint in the non-global
zone were visible in the global zone.
Then I realised it wasn't actually mounted (except in the delegated zone).
But I couldn't see any obvious indication that
On 06/09/06, Kenneth Mikelinich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you suggesting that I not get too granular with datasets and use a
higher level one versus several?
I tihnk what he's saying is you should only have to
delegate one dataset (telecom/oracle/production, for example),
and all the
A colleague just asked if zfs delegation worked with zvols too.
Thought I'd give it a go and got myself in a mess
(tank/linkfixer is the delegated dataset):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / # zfs create -V 500M tank/linkfixer/foo
cannot create device links for 'tank/linkfixer/foo': permission denied
cannot
On 06/09/06, Eric Schrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 03:53:52PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
That's a bit nicer, thanks.
Still not that clear which zone they belong to though - would
it be an idea to add a 'zone' property be a string == zonename ?
Yes, this is possible
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed the zfs send/recv
to
On 22/08/06, Bill Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:40:40PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote:
Yes, ZFS uses this command very frequently. However, it only does this
if the whole disk is under the control of ZFS, I believe; so a
workaround could be to use slices rather than
This is fantastic work!
How long have you been at it?
You seem a lot further on than the ZFS-Fuse project.
On 22/08/06, Pawel Jakub Dawidek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I started porting the ZFS file system to the FreeBSD operating system.
There is a lot to do, but I'm making good progress,
On 18/08/06, Lori Alt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, zfs boot will be supported on both x86 and sparc. Sparc's
OBP, and various x86 BIOS's both have restrictions on the devices
that can be accessed at boot time, so we need to limit the
devices in a root pool on both architectures.
Gotcha. I
On 15/07/06, Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
eric kustarz wrote:
martin wrote:
To monitor activity, use 'zpool iostat 1' to monitor just zfs
datasets, or iostat(1M) to include non-zfs devices.
Perhaps Martin was asking for something a little more robust. Something
like SNMP traps,
On 13/07/06, Yacov Ben-Moshe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can I remove a device or a partition from a pool.
NOTE: The devices are not mirrored or raidz
Then you can't - there isn't a 'zfs remove' command yet.
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
Well, glue a beard on me and call me Nostradamus :
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan?entry=the_rise_of_the_general
On 03/07/06, Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With ZFS officially supported now, I'd say The Stars Are Right
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
baseless_speculation
Notice there's a product announcement on Tuesday:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104STORY=/www/story/06-30-2006/0004390495EDATE=
and Jonathan mentioned Thumper was due for release at the end of june:
Just wondered if there'd been any progress in this area?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but as it stands, there's no way
to remove a device you accidentally 'zpool add'ed without
destroying the pool.
On 12/06/06, Gregory Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, if zpool remove works like you describe, it
I was wondering if anyone could recommend hardware
forr a ZFS-based NAS for home use.
The 'zfs on 32-bit' thread has scared me of a mini-itx fanless
setup, so I'm looking at sparc or opteron. Ideally it would:
a) run quiet (blade 100/150 is ok, x4100 ain't :) )
b) take advantage of cheap disks
On 11/06/06, Gregory Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pardon me if this scenario has been discussed already, but I haven't
seen anything as yet.
I'd like to request a 'zpool evacuate pool device' command.
'zpool evacuate' would migrate the data from a disk device to other
disks in the pool.
On 15/05/06, Tabriz Leman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those who haven't already gone through the painful manual process of
setting up a ZFS Root, Tim Foster has put together a script. It is
available on his blog (http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/timf/20060425).
I haven't tried it out, but am
88 matches
Mail list logo
