Did you try rm -- filename ?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 23, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Somehow I touched some rather peculiar file names in ~. Experimenting
with something I've now forgotten I guess.
Anyway I now have 3 zero length files with names -O, -c,
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag Agarwalanu...@kqinfotech.com
wrote:
We at KQInfotech, initially started on an independent port of ZFS to
linux.
When
In the meantime, you can use autofs to do something close to this if
you like (sort of like the pam_mkhomedir module) -- you can have it
execute a script that returns the appropriate auto_user entry (given a
username as input). I wrote one a long time ago that would do a zfs
create if the dataset
If you're just wanting to do something like the netapp .snapshot
(where it's in every directory), I'd be curious if the CIFS shadow
copy support might already have done a lot of the heavy lifting for
this. That might be a good place to look
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Peter Jeremy
Well the GUI I think is just Windows, it's all just APIs that are
presented to windows.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: jason.brian.k...@gmail.com [mailto:jason.brian.k...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Jason King
If you're just wanting to do
ISTR POSIX also doesn't allow a number of features that can be turned
on with zfs (even ignoring the current issues that prevent ZFS from
being fully POSIX compliant today). I think an additional option for
the snapdir property ('directory' ?) that provides this behavior (with
suitable warnings
It still has the issue that the end user has to know where the root of
the filesystem is in the tree (assuming it's even accessible on the
system -- might not be for an NFS mount).
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Edward Ned
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:06 AM, David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
On Wed, March 31, 2010 21:25, Bart Smaalders wrote:
ZFS root will be the supported root filesystem for Solaris Next; we've
been using it for OpenSolaris for a couple of years.
This is already supported:
Starting in the
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
Brett wrote:
Hi Folks,
Im in a shop thats very resistant to change. The management here are
looking for major justification of a move away from ufs to zfs for root file
systems. Does anyone know if there are any
Could also try /usr/gnu/bin/ls -U.
I'm working on improving the memory profile of /bin/ls (as it gets
somewhat excessive when dealing with large directories), which as a
side effect should also help with this.
Currently /bin/ls allocates a structure for every file, and doesn't
output anything
If you're doing anything with ACLs, the GNU utilities have no
knowledge of ACLs, so GNU chmod will not modify them (nor will GNU ls
show ACLs), you need to use /bin/chmod and /bin/ls to manipulate them.
It does sound though that GNU chmod is explicitly testing and skipping
any entry that's a link
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jim Mauro james.ma...@sun.com wrote:
Using ZFS for Oracle can be configured to deliver very good performance.
Depending on what your priorities are in terms of critical metrics, keep in
mind
that the most performant solution is to use Oracle ASM on raw disk
My problem is when you have 100+ luns divided between OS and DB,
keeping track of what's for what can become problematic. It becomes
even worse when you start adding luns -- the chance of accidentally
grabbing a DB lun instead of one of the new ones is non-trivial (then
there's also the chance
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
We have an open bug which results in new directories created over NFSv4
from a linux client having the wrong group ownership. While waiting for a
patch to resolve the issue, we have a script running hourly on the server
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Matthew Ahrens matthew.ahr...@sun.com wrote:
Michael Schuster wrote:
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Mikko Lammi mikko.la...@lmmz.net wrote:
Hello,
As a result of one badly designed application running loose for some
time,
we now seem
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Erik Ableson wrote:
Much depends on the contents of the files. Fixed size binary blobs that
align nicely with 16/32/64k boundaries, or variable sized text files.
Note that the default zfs
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
fyi
Robert Milkowski wrote:
XXX wrote:
| Have you actually tried to roll-back to previous uberblocks when you
| hit the issue? I'm asking as I haven't yet heard about any case
| of the issue witch was not solved
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
Dale Ghent wrote:
So looking at the README for patch 14144[45]-09, there are ton of ZFS
fixes and feature adds.
The big features are already described in the update 8 release docs, but
would anyone in-the-know care to
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Enda O'Connor enda.ocon...@sun.com wrote:
Jason King wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
Dale Ghent wrote:
So looking at the README for patch 14144[45]-09, there are ton of ZFS
fixes and feature adds.
The big
It does seem to come up regularly... perhaps someone with access could
throw up a page under the ZFS community with the conclusions (and
periodic updates as appropriate)..
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@sun.com wrote:
Nathan wrote:
While I am about to embark on
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Erik Trimbleerik.trim...@sun.com wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Neal Pollack wrote:
Actually, they do quite a bit more than that. They create jobs, generate
revenue for battery manufacturers, and tech's that change batteries and do
PM
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Jan Hlodan jan.hlo...@sun.com wrote:
Hi Tomas,
thanks for the answer.
Unfortunately, it didn't help much.
However I can mount all file systems, but system is broken - desktop
wont come up.
Could not update ICEauthority file /.ICEauthority
There is a problem
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Darin Perusich
darin.perus...@cognigencorp.com wrote:
Hello All,
I'm in the process of migrating a file server from Solaris 9, where
we're making extensive use of POSIX-ACLs, to ZFS and I have a question
that I'm hoping someone can clear up for me. I'm using
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Kees Nuyt k.n...@zonnet.nl wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 21:41:32 -0500, David Magda
dma...@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
On Jan 6, 2009, at 14:21, Rob wrote:
Obviously ZFS is ideal for large databases served out via
application level or web servers. But what other
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I haven't used a J4500, but when we had an x4500 (Thumper) on loan they
had Solaris pretty well integrated with the hardware. When a disk failed, I
used cfgadm to offline it and as soon as I did that a bright blue Ready to
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Mike Gerdts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Instead we should take it completely out of their hands
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Dave Koelmeyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All, first time caller here, so please be gentle...
I'm on OpenSolaris 2008.05, and following the really useful guide here to
create a CIFs share in domain mode:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:59 PM, EchoB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot recall if it was this (-discuss) or (-code) but a post a few
months ago caught my attention.
In it someone detailed having worked out the math and algorithms for a
flexible expansion scheme for ZFS. Clearly this is very
Edit the kernel$ line and add '-k' at the end. That should drop you
into the kernel debugger after the panic (typing '$q' will exit the
debugger, and resume whatever it was doing -- in this case likely
rebooting).
On Dec 18, 2007 6:26 PM, Michael Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Begin forwarded
elaborate.
Lori
Jason King wrote:
Apparently with zfs boot, if the zpool is a version grub doesn't
recognize, it merely ignores any zfs entries in menu.lst, and
apparently instead boots the first entry it thinks it can boot. I ran
into this myself due to some boneheaded mistakes while doing
Apparently with zfs boot, if the zpool is a version grub doesn't
recognize, it merely ignores any zfs entries in menu.lst, and
apparently instead boots the first entry it thinks it can boot. I ran
into this myself due to some boneheaded mistakes while doing a very
manual zfs / install at the
On 9/25/07, Gregory Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:09 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Dale Ghent wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
The problem with this is that wrong information is much worse than no
information, there is no way to automatically
On 9/13/07, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:54:41AM -0600, Lori Alt wrote:
In-place upgrade of zfs datasets is not supported and probably
never will be (LiveUpgrade will be the way to go with zfs because
the cloning features of zfs make it a natural).
Just playing around a bit w/ zfs + zfs root (no particularly good
reason other than to just mess around a bit), and I hit an issue that
I suspect is simple to fix, but I cannot seem to figure out what that
is.
I wanted to try (essentially) doing a very manual install to an empty
zfs filesystem.
I've had at least some success (tried it once so far) doing a BFU to cloned
filesystem from a b62 zfs root system, I could probably document that if
there is interest.
I have not tried taking a new ISO and installing the new packages ontop of a
cloned fileystem though.
On 5/31/07, Lori Alt
I tried it and it worked great. Even cloned my boot environment, and BFU'd the
clone and it seemed to work (minus a few unrelated annoyances I haven't tracked
down yet). I'm quite excited about the possibilities :)
I am wondering though, is it possible to skip the creation of the pool and
Anxiously anticipating the ability to boot off zfs, I know there's been some
talk about leveraging some of the snapshotting/cloning features in conjunction
with upgrades and patches.
What I am really hoping for is the ability to clone /, patch the clone, then
boot off the clone (by doing a
37 matches
Mail list logo
