On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
I do have to suffer a slow, glitchy WAN to a remote server and rather than
send stream files, I broke the data *on the remote server* into a more
fine grained set of filesystems than I would do normally. In this case, I
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
I do have a lot of what would appear to be unnecessary filesystems, but
after loosing the WAN 3 days into a large transfer, a change of tactic was
required!
I've recently (last year or so) gone the other way, and have made
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Gregg Wonderly gregg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/2011 8:51 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
If you don't detach the smaller drive, the pool size won't increase. Even
if the remaining smaller drive fails, that doesn't mean you have to detach
it. So yes, the pool
Of course I meant 'zpool *' not 'zfs *' below.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Frank Cusack fr...@linetwo.net wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Gregg Wonderly gregg...@gmail.comwrote:
On 12/19/2011 8:51 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
If you don't detach the smaller drive, the pool size
If you don't detach the smaller drive, the pool size won't increase. Even
if the remaining smaller drive fails, that doesn't mean you have to detach
it. So yes, the pool size might increase, but it won't be unexpectedly.
It will be because you detached all smaller drives. Also, even if a
You can just do fdisk to create a single large partition. The attached
mirror doesn't have to be the same size as the first component.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Gregg Wonderly gregg...@gmail.com wrote:
Cindy, will it ever be possible to just have attach mirror the surfaces,
including
Yes, except if your root pool is on a USB stick or removable media.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria)
mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at wrote:
On Solaris 10 If I install using ZFS root on only one drive is there a way
to add another drive as a mirror later? Sorry if
It can still be done for USB, but you have to boot from alternate media to
attach the mirror.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Frank Cusack fr...@linetwo.net wrote:
Yes, except if your root pool is on a USB stick or removable media.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Anonymous Remailer
Corruption? Or just loss?
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Matt Breitbach
matth...@flash.shanje.comwrote:
I would say that it's a highly recommended. If you have a pool that
needs
to be imported and it has a faulted, unmirrored log device, you risk data
corruption.
-Matt Breitbach
I haven't been able to get this working. To keep it simpler, next I am
going to try usbcopy of the live USB image in the VM, and see if I can boot
real hardware from the resultant live USB stick.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Frank Cusack fr...@linetwo.net wrote:
I haven't been able to get this working. To keep it simpler, next I am
going to try usbcopy of the live USB image in the VM, and see if I can
boot
I have a Sun machine running Solaris 10, and a Vbox instance running
Solaris 11 11/11. The vbox machine has a virtual disk pointing to
/dev/disk1 (rawdisk), seen in sol11 as c0t2.
If I create a zpool on the Sun s10 machine, on a USB stick, I can take that
USB stick and access it through the vbox
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha w...@fajar.net wrote:
So basically the question is if you install solaris on one machine,
can you move the disk (in this case the usb stick) to another machine
and boot it there, right?
Yes, but one of the machines is a virtual machine.
The
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha w...@fajar.net wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Frank Cusack fr...@linetwo.net wrote:
If we ignore the vbox aspect of it, and assume real hardware with real
devices, of course you can install on one x86 hardware and move the
drive
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha w...@fajar.net wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Frank Cusack fr...@linetwo.net wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha w...@fajar.net
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Frank Cusack fr...@linetwo.net
wrote
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Frank Cusack fr...@linetwo.net wrote:
grub does need to have an idea of the device path, maybe in vbox it's seen
as the 3rd disk (c0t2), so the boot device name written to grub.conf is
disk3 (whatever the terminology for that is in grub-speak), but when I
On 12/16/10 10:24 AM -0500 Linder, Doug wrote:
Tim Cook wrote:
Claiming you'd start paying for Solaris if they gave you ZFS for free
in Linux is absolutely ridiculous.
*Start* paying? You clearly have NO idea what it costs to run Solaris in
a production environment with support.
In my
On 12/16/10 9:11 AM -0500 Linder, Doug wrote:
The only thing I'll add is that I, as I said, I really don't care at all
about licenses.
Then you have no room to complain or even suggest a specific license!
When it comes to licenses, to me (and, I suspect, the
vast majority of other OSS
On 12/16/10 11:32 AM +0100 Joerg Schilling wrote:
Note that while there existist
numerous papers from lawyers that consistently explain which parts of
the GPLv2 are violating US law and thus are void,
Can you elaborate?
___
zfs-discuss mailing
On 9/8/10 9:32 AM -0400 Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Magda
The 9/10 Update appears to have been released. Some of the more
noticeable
ZFS stuff that made it in:
More at:
On 8/19/10 10:48 AM +0200 Joerg Schilling wrote:
1) The OpenSource definition
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php section 9 makes it very
clear that an OSS license must not restrict other software and must not
prevent to bundle different works under different licenses on one medium.
On 8/18/10 3:58 PM -0400 Linder, Doug wrote:
Erik Trimble wrote:
That said, stability vs new features has NOTHING to do with the OSS
development model. It has everything to do with the RELEASE model.
[...]
All that said, using the OSS model for actual *development* of an
Operating System is
On 8/17/10 9:14 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net
wrote:
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
On 8/17/10 3:31 PM +0900 BM wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Andrej Podzimek and...@podzimek.org
wrote:
Disclaimer: I use Reiser4
A Killer FS™. :-)
LOL
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
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 8/14/10 10:18 PM -0700 Richard Elling wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many distributions of
OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
and why should Oracle enable them to build a business
On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote:
Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many distributions of
OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
and why should Oracle enable them to build a business
On 8/13/10 11:21 PM -0400 Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris.
What rock do you live under?
Very few people would bother paying
On 8/14/10 7:58 AM -0500 Russ Price wrote:
My guess is that the theoretical Solaris Express 11 will be crippled by
any or all of: missing features, artificial limits on functionality, or a
restrictive license. I consider the latter most likely, much like the OTN
On 8/14/10 3:15 PM -0400 Dave
On 8/15/10 12:39 AM +0100 Kevin Walker wrote:
and Oracle are very, very greedy...
Let's not get all soft about OpenSolaris now ... all public companies
are very, very greedy. They exist solely to make money. It's awesome
that they make things that are useful, but it's just a way to meet
the
On 8/13/10 3:39 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote:
Quite frankly, I think there will be an even faster decline of Solaris
installed base after this move. I know I have no interest in pushing it
anywhere after this mess.
I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris.
On 8/14/10 4:01 AM +0700 C. Bergström wrote:
Gary Mills wrote:
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris
with
On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
It would be nice to have applications request to be notified
before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested
notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot
would be taken; and then another notification sent that it was
On 7/16/10 3:07 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Fri, July 16, 2010 14:07, Frank Cusack wrote:
On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
It would be nice to have applications request to be notified
before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested
notification have
On 7/15/10 9:49 AM +0900 BM wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
ZFS is great. It's pretty much the only reason we're running Solaris.
Well, if this is the the only reason, then run FreeBSD instead. I run
Solaris because of the kernel architecture and
On 6/26/10 9:47 AM -0400 David Magda wrote:
Crickey. Who's the genius who thinks of these URLs?
SEOs
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 6/18/10 11:25 PM -0700 Cott Lang wrote:
By detach, do you mean that you ran 'zpool detach'?
Yes.
'zpool detach' clears the information from the disk that zfs needs to
reimport the disk. If you have a late enough version of opensolaris
you should instead run 'zpool split'. Otherwise,
On 6/18/10 9:46 PM -0700 Cott Lang wrote:
I split a mirror to reconfigure and recopy it. I detached one drive,
reconfigured it ... all after unplugging the remaining pool drive during
a shutdown to verify no accidents could happen.
By detach, do you mean that you ran 'zpool detach'?
Should naming the root pool something unique (rpool-nodename) be a
best practice?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 6/10/10 11:07 PM -0700 Dave Koelmeyer wrote:
I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that the
context of what I was replying to was missing. Can't win :P
There's a big difference between trim and remove.
The worst is when people quote 3-4 paragraphs, respond inline to
On 6/4/10 11:46 AM -0700 Brandon High wrote:
Be aware that Solaris on x86 has two types of partitions. There are
fdisk partitions (c0t0d0p1, etc) which is what gparted, windows and
other tools will see. There are also Solaris partitions or slices
(c0t0d0s0). You can create or edit these with the
On 6/2/10 11:10 PM -0400 Roman Naumenko wrote:
Well, I explained it not very clearly. I meant the size of a raidz array
can't be changed.
For sure zpool add can do the job with a pool. Not with a raidz
configuration.
Well in that case it's invalid to compare against Netapp since they
can't do
On 6/3/10 8:45 AM +0200 Juergen Nickelsen wrote:
Richard Elling rich...@nexenta.com writes:
And some time before I had suggested to a my buddy zfs for his new
home storage server, but he turned it down since there is no
expansion available for a pool.
Heck, let him buy a NetApp :-)
On 6/2/10 3:54 PM -0700 Roman Naumenko wrote:
And some time before I had suggested to a my buddy zfs for his new home
storage server, but he turned it down since there is no expansion
available for a pool.
That's incorrect. zfs pools can be expanded at any time. AFAIK zfs has
always had this
On 6/1/10 4:35 AM -0700 Fred Liu wrote:
I just recalled a thread in this list and it said SMI lable and EFI label
cannot be in one disk. Is it correct?
Correct. But that was not your original question.
Let me describe my case.
I have a 160GB HDD -- saying c0t0d0. I use OpenSolaris installer
On 5/29/10 12:54 AM -0700 Matt Connolly wrote:
I'm running snv_134 on 64-bit x86 motherboard, with 2 SATA drives. The
zpool rpool uses whole disk of each drive.
Can't be. zfs can't boot from a whole disk pool on x86 (maybe sparc too).
You have a single solaris partition with the root pool on
On 4/21/10 3:48 PM +0100 Bayard Bell wrote:
Oracle has a number of technologies that they've acquired that have
remained dual-licensed, and that includes acquiring InnoTech, which they
carried forward despite being able to use it as nearly an existential
threat to MySQL. In the case of their
On 2/21/10 11:08 PM -0800 Tau wrote:
I am having a bit of an issue I have an opensolaris box setup as a
fileserver. Running through CIFS to provide shares to some windows
machines.
Now lets call my zpool /tank1,
Let's not because '/' is an illegal character in a zpool name.
when i
On 2/10/10 2:06 PM -0800 Brian E. Imhoff wrote:
I then, Create a zpool, using raidz2, using all 24 drives, 1 as a
hotspare: zpool create tank raidz2 c1t0d0 c1t1d0 [] c1t22d0 spare
c1t23d00
Well there's one problem anyway. That's going to be horribly slow no
matter what.
On 2/9/10 12:03 PM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote:
Snorcle wants to sell hardware.
LOL ... snorcle
But apparently they don't. Have you seen the new website? Seems like a
blatant attempt to kill the hardware business to me.
___
zfs-discuss mailing
On 2/9/10 5:19 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Toby Thain t...@telegraphics.com.au
wrote:
On 9-Feb-10, at 2:02 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On 2/9/10 12:03 PM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote:
Snorcle wants to sell hardware.
LOL ... snorcle
But apparently they don't
On 2/8/10 12:49 AM -0200 Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
I think the industry is in a sad state when you buy enterprise-level
drives and they don't work as expected (see that thread about TLER
settings on WD enterprise drives) that you have to spend extra on drives
that got reviewed by a third-party
On 2/6/10 4:51 PM +0100 Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
the pricing does look strange, and I think it would be better to raise
the price of the enclosure (which is silly cheap when empty IMHO) and
reduce the drive prices somewhat. but that's just psychology, and
doesn't really matter for total
On 2/5/10 3:49 PM -0500 c.hanover wrote:
Two things, mostly related, that I'm trying to find answers to for our
security team.
Does this scenario make sense:
* Create a filesystem at /users/nfsshare1, user uses it for a while, asks
for the filesystem to be deleted * New user asks for a
On 2/5/10 5:08 PM -0500 c.hanover wrote:
would it be possible to
create a 1GB file without writing any data to it, and then use a hex
editor to access the data stored on those blocks previously?
No, not over NFS and also not locally. You'd be creating a sparse file,
which doesn't allocate
You might also want to note that with traditional filesystems, the
'shred' utility will securely erase data, but no tools like that
will work for zfs.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On February 4, 2010 12:12:04 PM +0100 dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl
wrote:
Why don't you just export that directory with NFS (rw) to your sparse zone
and mount it on /usr/perl5/mumble ? Or is this too simple a thought?
On February 4, 2010 1:41:20 PM +0100 Thomas Maier-Komor
BTW, I could just install everything in the global zone and use the
default inheritance of /usr into each local zone to see the data.
But then my zones are not independent portable entities; they would
depend on some non-default software installed in the global zone.
Just wanted to explain why
On 2/4/10 8:00 AM +0100 Tomas Ögren wrote:
rsync by default compares metadata first, and only checks through every
byte if you add the -c (checksum) flag.
I would say rsync is the best tool here.
ah, i didn't know that was the default. no wonder recently when i was
incremental-rsyncing a few
On 2/4/10 8:21 AM -0500 Ross Walker wrote:
Find -newer doesn't catch files added or removed it assumes identical
trees.
This may be redundant in light of my earlier post, but yes it does.
Directory mtimes are updated when a file is added or removed, and
find -newer will detect that.
-frank
On 2/4/10 2:46 PM -0600 Nicolas Williams wrote:
In Frank's case, IIUC, the better solution is to avoid the need for
unionfs in the first place by not placing pkg content in directories
that one might want to be writable from zones. If there's anything
about Perl5 (or anything else) that causes
On February 3, 2010 12:04:07 PM +0200 Henu henrik.he...@tut.fi wrote:
Is there a possibility to get a list of changed files between two
snapshots?
Great timing as I just looked this up last night, I wanted to verify
that an install program was only changing the files on disk that it
claimed to
On February 3, 2010 12:04:07 PM +0200 Henu henrik.he...@tut.fi wrote:
Is there a possibility to get a list of changed files between two
snapshots? Currently I do this manually, using basic file system
functions offered by OS. I scan every byte in every file manually and it
On February 3, 2010 6:02:52 PM +0100 Jens Elkner
jel+...@cs.uni-magdeburg.de wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:29:18AM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
# newer files
find /file/system -newer /file/system/.zfs/snapshot/snapname -type f
# deleted files
cd /file/system/.zfs/snapshot/snapname
find
On February 3, 2010 12:19:50 PM -0500 Frank Cusack
frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net wrote:
If you do need to know about deleted files, the find method still may
be faster depending on how ddiff determines whether or not to do a
file diff. The docs don't explain the heuristics so I wouldn't want
Is it possible to emulate a unionfs with zfs and zones somehow? My zones
are sparse zones and I want to make part of /usr writable within a zone.
(/usr/perl5/mumble to be exact)
I can't just mount a writable directory on top of /usr/perl5 because then
it hides all the stuff in the global zone.
On February 2, 2010 8:57:32 AM -0800 Orvar Korvar
knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote:
I love that Sun shares their products for free. Which other big Unix
vendor does that?
Who's left?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On February 2, 2010 11:58:17 AM -0600 Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Frank Cusack
frank+lists/z...@linetwo.netwrote:
On February 2, 2010 8:57:32 AM -0800 Orvar Korvar
knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote:
I love that Sun shares their products for free. Which
On February 2, 2010 12:08:13 PM -0600 Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Not exactly unix, but there's still VMS clusters running around out there
with 100% uptime for over 20 years. I wouldn't mind seeing it opened up.
Agreed, I'd love to see that opened up. Might even give it new life.
On February 2, 2010 11:58:12 AM -0800 Simon Breden sbre...@gmail.com
wrote:
IIRC the Black range are meant to be the 'performance' models and so are
a bit noisy. What's your opinion? And the 2TB models are not cheap either
for a home user. The 1TB seem a good price. And from what little I read,
On February 2, 2010 4:31:47 PM -0500 Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
and FCoE is just dumb if you have IB, honestly.
by FCoE are you talking about iSCSI?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On January 14, 2010 1:08:56 PM -0500 Frank Cusack fcus...@fcusack.com
wrote:
I know this is slightly OT but folks discuss zfs compatible hardware
here all the time. :)
Has anyone used something like this combination?
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1346664
http://www.cdw.com
On February 1, 2010 11:59:14 AM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net
wrote:
One idea I seriously considered is to boot off a USB key. No online
redundancy (but I'd keep a second loaded key, plus the files to quickly
reimage a new key, handy).
I've just built my first USB-booting zfs system.
On February 1, 2010 10:19:24 AM -0700 Cindy Swearingen
cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote:
ZFS has recommended ways for swapping disks so if the pool is exported,
the system shutdown and then disks are swapped, then the behavior is
unpredictable and ZFS is understandably confused about what
On February 1, 2010 1:09:21 PM -0700 Cindy Swearingen
cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote:
Whether disk swapping on the fly or a controller firmware update
renumbers the devices causes a problem really depends on the driver--ZFS
interaction and we can't speak for all hardware.
With mpxio disks are
On February 1, 2010 4:15:10 PM -0500 Frank Cusack
frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net wrote:
On February 1, 2010 1:09:21 PM -0700 Cindy Swearingen
cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote:
Whether disk swapping on the fly or a controller firmware update
renumbers the devices causes a problem really depends
http://www.memoryx.net/5410456.html
I've bought sleds for X4150s and X2270s from them.
interesting mis-description on the web page. thumper doesn't use SCA
drives.
-frank
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On January 30, 2010 10:27:41 AM -0800 Michelle Knight
miche...@msknight.com wrote:
I did this as a test because I am aware that zpools don't like drives
switching controlers without being exported first.
They don't mind it at all. It's one of the great things about zfs.
What they do mind is
On January 23, 2010 8:23:08 PM -0600 Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
I bet you'll get the same performance out of 3x1.5TB drives you get out of
6x500GB drives too.
Yup. And if that's the case, probably you want to go with the 3 drives
because your operating costs (power consumption) will be
On January 24, 2010 11:45:57 AM +1100 Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 06:39:25PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
Smaller devices cost more $/GB; ie they are more expensive.
Usually, other than the very largest (most recent) drives, that are
still at a premium price
On January 24, 2010 8:41:00 AM -0800 Erik Trimble erik.trim...@sun.com
wrote:
an external JBOD chassis, not a server chassis.
http://h18006.www1.hp.com/storage/disk_storage/msa_diskarrays/drive_enclosures/index.html
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On January 24, 2010 8:26:07 AM -0800 R.G. Keen k...@geofex.com wrote:
In my case, I got 0.75TB drives
for $58 each. The cost per bit is bigger than buying 1TB or 1.5TB drives,
all right, but I can buy more of them, and that lets me put another drive
on for the next level of error correction
On January 24, 2010 8:26:07 AM -0800 R.G. Keen k...@geofex.com wrote:
“Fewer/bigger versus more/smaller drives”: Tim and Frank have worked
this one over. I made the choice based on wanting to get a raidz3 setup,
for which more disks are needed than raidz or raidz2. This idea comes out
of the
On January 23, 2010 8:04:50 AM -0800 R.G. Keen k...@geofex.com wrote:
The answer I came to, perhaps through lack of information and experience,
is that there isn't a best 1.5tb drive. I decided that 1.5tb is too big,
and that it's better to use more and smaller devices so I could get to
raidz3.
I thought with NFS4 *on solaris* that clients would follow the zfs
filesystem hierarchy and mount sub-filesystems. That doesn't seem
to be happening and I can't find any documentation on it (either way).
Did I only dream up this feature or does it actually exist? I am
using s10_u8.
thanks
On January 23, 2010 5:17:16 PM -0600 Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Smaller devices get you to raid-z3 because they cost less money.
Therefore, you can afford to buy more of them.
I sure hope you aren't ever buying for my company! :) :)
Smaller devices cost more $/GB; ie they are more
On January 23, 2010 1:20:13 PM -0800 Richard Elling
My theory is that drives cost $100.
Obviously you're not talking about Sun drives. :)
-frank
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On January 23, 2010 6:09:49 PM -0600 Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
When you've got a home system and X amount of dollars
to spend, $/GB means absolutely nothing when you need a certain number of
drives to have the redundancy you require.
Don't you generally need a certain amount of GB? I know
On January 23, 2010 6:53:26 PM -0600 Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Frank Cusack wrote:
Notice that the referenced path is subordinate to the exported zfs
filesystem.
Well, assuming there is a single home zfs filesystem and not a
filesystem-per-user
On January 23, 2010 4:33:59 PM -0800 Richard L. Hamilton
rlha...@smart.net wrote:
It might be nice if zfs list would check an environment variable for
a default list of properties to show (same as the comma-separated list
used with the -o option). If not set, it would use the current default
I know this is slightly OT but folks discuss zfs compatible hardware
here all the time. :)
Has anyone used something like this combination?
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1346664
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1854700
It'd be nice to have externally
On January 14, 2010 8:58:51 PM + A Darren Dunham ddun...@taos.com
wrote:
I was under the impression that the ZFS fast replay only held for
mirrors where one part is missing and not where you actually
administratively detach it or where the mirror is used on another host
(a la 'zpool split').
been searching and searching ...
i know many (most?) folks here are using opensolaris. surely most of you
are not using the default heavyweight install with gnome et al.? how are
you installing a minimal server system?
i've been banging my head forever with samba and ADS and want to try
Since there's nothing I love better on a Sunday than a religious OT
discussion:
On January 2, 2010 8:51:25 PM -0500 Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2010, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
Hardly any Apple users are complaining about the advanced filesytem
On December 21, 2009 10:45:29 PM -0500 Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Scrubbing on a routine basis is good for detecting problems early, but it
doesn't solve the problem of a double failure during resilver. As the
size of disks become huge the chance of a double failure during
The zfs best practices page (and all the experts in general) talk about
MTTDL and raidz2 is better than raidz and so on.
Has anyone here ever actually experienced data loss in a raidz that
has a hot spare? Of course, I mean from disk failure, not from bugs
or admin error, etc.
-frank
I'm considering setting up a poor man's cluster. The hardware I'd
like to use for some critical services is especially attractive for
price/space/performance reasons, however it only has a single power
supply. I'm using S10 U8 and can't migrate to OpenSolaris.
It's fine if a server dies (ie,
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#RAID-Z_Configuration_Requirements_and_Recommendations
says that the number of disks in a RAIDZ should be (N+P) with
N = {2,4,8} and P = {1,2}.
But if you go down the page just a little further to the thumper
configuration
On October 19, 2009 9:53:14 AM +1300 Trevor Pretty
trevor_pre...@eagle.co.nz wrote:
Frank
I've been looking into:-
http://www.nexenta.com/corp/index.php?option=com_contenttask=blogsection
id=4Itemid=128
Thanks! I *thought* there was a Nexenta solution but a google search
didn't turn anything
Apologies if this has been covered before, I couldn't find anything
in my searching.
Can the software which runs on the 7000 series servers be installed
on an x4275?
-frank
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
1 - 100 of 312 matches
Mail list logo
