On 25 June 2012 11:33, casper@oracle.com wrote:
Does someone know the history which led to the EPERM for unlink() of
directories on ZFS? Why was this done this way, and not something like
allowing the unlink and execute it on the next scrub or remount?
It's not about the unlink(), it's
To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other
filesystems and I think ZFS was created this way because all modern
filesystems do it that way.
This may be wrong way to go if it breaks existing applications which
rely on this feature. It does break applications in our case.
I
On 26 June 2012 14:51, casper@oracle.com wrote:
To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other
filesystems and I think ZFS was created this way because all modern
filesystems do it that way.
This may be wrong way to go if it breaks existing applications which
rely on
We've already asked our Netapp representative. She said it's not hard
to add that.
And symlinks don't work for this? I'm amazed because we're talking about
the same file system. Or is it that the code you have does the
hardlinking?
If you want this rfo Oracle, you would need to talk to
On 06/26/12 05:46 AM, Lionel Cons wrote:
On 25 June 2012 11:33, casper@oracle.com wrote:
To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other
filesystems and I think ZFS was created this way because all modern
filesystems do it that way.
This may be wrong way to go if it
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
On 06/26/12 05:46 AM, Lionel Cons wrote:
On 25 June 2012 11:33, casper@oracle.com wrote:
To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other
filesystems and I think ZFS was created this way
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:41:14AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
On 06/26/12 05:46 AM, Lionel Cons wrote:
On 25 June 2012 11:33, casper@oracle.com wrote:
To be honest, I think we should also remove this
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Lionel Cons
lionelcons1...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2012 14:51, casper@oracle.com wrote:
We've already asked our Netapp representative. She said it's not hard
to add that.
Did NetApp tell you that they'll add support for using the NFSv4 LINK
Hello everybody,
I recently migrated a file server (NFS Samba) from OpenSolaris (Build 111) to
Sol11. This the move we are facing random (or random looking) outages of our
Samba. As we have moved several folders (like Desktop and ApplicationData) out
of the usual profile to a folder inside
2012-06-26 23:57, Carsten John wrote:
Hello everybody,
I recently migrated a file server (NFS Samba) from OpenSolaris (Build 111) to
Sol11.
(After?) the move we are facing random (or random looking) outages of
our Samba...
As for the timeouts, check if your tuning (i.e. the migrated files
Hello all,
I am revising an older OpenSolaris file-server before an upgrade
to OI, and this server uses COMSTAR to publish some zvols via iSCSI.
As I revised the procedure used to set it up originally, I remember
that the initial OpenSolaris iSCSI stack performed poorer, but only
it was
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
1) Is COMSTAR still not-integrated with shareiscsi ZFS attributes?
Or can the pool use the attribute, and the correct (new COMSTAR)
iSCSI target daemon will fire up?
I can't speak for Solaris 11, but for illumos, you need
2012-06-27 1:00, Bill Pijewski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
1) Is COMSTAR still not-integrated with shareiscsi ZFS attributes?
Or can the pool use the attribute, and the correct (new COMSTAR)
iSCSI target daemon will fire up?
I can't speak
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:23:42PM -0500, Timothy Coalson wrote:
Sorry, if you meant distinguishing between true 512 and emulated
512/4k, I don't know, it may be vendor-specific as to whether they
expose it through device commands at all.
At least on Linux you can see the info from:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 01:42:27AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:23:42PM -0500, Timothy Coalson wrote:
Sorry, if you meant distinguishing between true 512 and emulated
512/4k, I don't know, it may be vendor-specific as to whether they
expose it through device
15 matches
Mail list logo
