iirc, we would notify the user community that the FS'es were going to hang
briefly.
Locking the FS'es is the best way to quiesce it, when users are worldwide, imo.
Mark
On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> A matter of seconds is a long time for a running Oracle database. The po
A matter of seconds is a long time for a running Oracle database. The
point is that if you have to keep writing to a UFS filesystem - "when
the file system also needs to accommodate writes" - you're still out of
luck. If you can quiesce the apps, great, but if you can't then you're
still stuck.
Why do you say fssnap has the same problem?
If it write locks the file system, it is only for a matter of seconds, as I
recall.
Years ago, I used it on a daily basis to do ufsdumps of large fs'es.
Mark
On Jan 30, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 5:26 PM, Joerg Schilling
Torrey McMahon wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 5:26 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Richard Elling wrote:
> >
> >> ufsdump is the problem, not ufsrestore. If you ufsdump an active
> >> file system, there is no guarantee you can ufsrestore it. The only way
> >> to guarantee this is to keep the file system q
> From: Peter Jeremy [mailto:peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:48 PM
>
> >2- When you want to restore, it's all or nothing. If a single bit is
> >corrupt in the data stream, the whole stream is lost.
> >
> OTOH, it renders ZFS send useless for backup or archival
On 1/30/2011 5:26 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
ufsdump is the problem, not ufsrestore. If you ufsdump an active
file system, there is no guarantee you can ufsrestore it. The only way
to guarantee this is to keep the file system quiesced during the entire
ufsdump. Needless
Richard Elling wrote:
> ufsdump is the problem, not ufsrestore. If you ufsdump an active
> file system, there is no guarantee you can ufsrestore it. The only way
> to guarantee this is to keep the file system quiesced during the entire
> ufsdump. Needless to say, this renders ufsdump useless for
On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Jan-28 21:37:50 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote:
>> 2- When you want to restore, it's all or nothing. If a single bit is
>> corrupt in the data stream, the whole stream is lost.
>>
>> Regarding point #2, I contend that zfs send is be
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Peter Jeremy
wrote:
> On 2011-Jan-28 21:37:50 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote:
>>2- When you want to restore, it's all or nothing. If a single bit is
>>corrupt in the data stream, the whole stream is lost.
>>
>>Regarding point #2, I contend that zfs send is bet
On 2011-Jan-28 21:37:50 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
>2- When you want to restore, it's all or nothing. If a single bit is
>corrupt in the data stream, the whole stream is lost.
>
>Regarding point #2, I contend that zfs send is better than ufsdump. I would
>prefer to discover corruption in t
On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Tristram Scott wrote:
> I don't disagree that zfs is the better choice, but...
>
>> Seriously though. UFS is dead. It has no advantage
>> over ZFS that I'm aware
>> of.
>>
>
> When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no official
> replace
On 28/01/2011 13:37, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tristram Scott
When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no
official
replacement for the ufsdump and ufsrestore.
Let's g
On 01/28/11 02:37 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Let's go into that a little bit. If you're piping zfs send directly into
zfs receive, then it is an ideal backup method. But not everybody can
afford the disk necessary to do that, so people are tempted to "zfs send"
to
a file or tape. There are
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tristram Scott
>
> When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no
official
> replacement for the ufsdump and ufsrestore.
Let's go into that a little bit. If you're pi
I don't disagree that zfs is the better choice, but...
> Seriously though. UFS is dead. It has no advantage
> over ZFS that I'm aware
> of.
>
When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no official
replacement for the ufsdump and ufsrestore. The discussion has been had
The only situation I can think of where UFS would be advantageous over
ZFS might be in a low memory situation. ZFS loves memory.
But to answer the original question, ZFS is where you want to be.
Jerry
On 12/08/10 20:56, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mai
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
>
> The best choice is usually to install with zfs root on a mirrored pair
> of disks. UFS is going away as a boot option.
UFS is already unavailable as a boot option. It's o
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Albert wrote:
I wonder what is the better option to install the system on solaris ufs and
zfs sensitive data on whether this is the best all on zfs?
What are the pros and cons of such a solution?
The best choice is usually to install with zfs root on a mirrored pair
of di
Hi,
I wonder what is the better option to install the system on solaris ufs
and zfs sensitive data on whether this is the best all on zfs?
What are the pros and cons of such a solution?
f...@ll
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
19 matches
Mail list logo
