Hi all,
Would I be correct in thinking that LiveUpgrade plays nicely
with ZFS boot, now that the latter is integrated into Nevada?
TIA,
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer
http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
More or less. There are a number of bugs in LU support of zfs that we''ve just fixed in the final builds of the S10 Update 6 release, which we''ll forward-port to Nevada as soon as we catch our breath. Most but not all are related to support of zones. Lori Rich Teer wrote:>Hi all, > >Would I be correct in thinking that LiveUpgrade plays nicely >with ZFS boot, now that the latter is integrated into Nevada? > >TIA, > > >
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:12:01PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:> > Would I be correct in thinking that LiveUpgrade plays nicely > with ZFS boot, now that the latter is integrated into Nevada?Wonderfully! `lucreate'' is almost instantaneous because it doesn''t do any copying. You can also put several boot environments on the same ZFS pool. So far, I''ve done upgrades to builds 95 and 96 that way. My AMD box has two 80-gig SATA disks in a ZFS mirror. I''m very impressed. -- -Gary Mills- -Unix Support- -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Lori Alt <Lori.Alt at sun.com> wrote:> More or less. There are a number of bugs in LU > support of zfs that we''ve just fixed in the final builds > of the S10 Update 6 release, which we''ll forward-port > to Nevada as soon as we catch our breath. Most but > not all are related to support of zones.Lori, that''s very interesting ! Can you share more info on what these bugs/issues are ? Since it is LU related I guess we''ll never see these via opensolaris.org, right ? So I would appreciate if community will be updated when these fixes will go into SXCE. -- Regards, Cyril
On 8/26/08, Cyril Plisko <cyril.plisko at mountall.com> wrote:> that''s very interesting ! Can you share more info on what these > bugs/issues are ? Since it is LU related I guess we''ll never see these > via opensolaris.org, right ? So I would appreciate if community will > be updated when these fixes will go into SXCE.As a newbie user of Solaris running snv_94, I second this! It was suggested to me to use ZFS mirror for my boot volume and that LU will run great on that, but if there are issues I''d like to know and know when they''re fixed!
mike wrote:> On 8/26/08, Cyril Plisko <cyril.plisko at mountall.com> wrote: > > >> that''s very interesting ! Can you share more info on what these >> bugs/issues are ? Since it is LU related I guess we''ll never see these >> via opensolaris.org, right ? So I would appreciate if community will >> be updated when these fixes will go into SXCE. >> > > As a newbie user of Solaris running snv_94, I second this! It was > suggested to me to use ZFS mirror for my boot volume and that LU will > run great on that, but if there are issues I''d like to know and know > when they''re fixed! >I looked at the list of LU bugs we''ve fixed recently in the S10 update release and all but one were related to live upgrades of systems with zones. The only one that wasn''t was a bug in generating the metadata file (<pool>/boot/menu.lst) on SPARC platforms that allows the new "boot -L" option to generate a list of available BEs. It''s not a big deal. My previous mail stating that zfs+liveupgrade worked "more or less" was taking into account some of the issues we''ve had with zones. Other than zones issues, I agree with those who say it works well. Lori -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080827/06adf2a3/attachment.html>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Lori Alt <Lori.Alt at sun.com> wrote:> mike wrote: > > On 8/26/08, Cyril Plisko <cyril.plisko at mountall.com> wrote: > > > > that''s very interesting ! Can you share more info on what these > bugs/issues are ? Since it is LU related I guess we''ll never see these > via opensolaris.org, right ? So I would appreciate if community will > be updated when these fixes will go into SXCE. > > > As a newbie user of Solaris running snv_94, I second this! It was > suggested to me to use ZFS mirror for my boot volume and that LU will > run great on that, but if there are issues I''d like to know and know > when they''re fixed! > > > I looked at the list of LU bugs we''ve fixed recently > in the S10 update release and all but one were related > to live upgrades of systems with zones. The only one > that wasn''t was a bug in generating the metadata > file (<pool>/boot/menu.lst) on SPARC platforms > that allows the new "boot -L" option to generate a > list of available BEs. It''s not a big deal. > > My previous mail stating that zfs+liveupgrade worked > "more or less" was taking into account some of the > issues we''ve had with zones. Other than zones issues, > I agree with those who say it works well.Zones issues are precisely those I am after - I have zfs root with numerous zones home server running snv_96 and would like to know what problems to expect. Can you please tell us more on these ZFS + LU + zones issues ? -- Regards, Cyril
Cyril Plisko wrote:> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Lori Alt <Lori.Alt at sun.com> wrote: > >> mike wrote: >> >> On 8/26/08, Cyril Plisko <cyril.plisko at mountall.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> that''s very interesting ! Can you share more info on what these >> bugs/issues are ? Since it is LU related I guess we''ll never see these >> via opensolaris.org, right ? So I would appreciate if community will >> be updated when these fixes will go into SXCE. >> >> >> As a newbie user of Solaris running snv_94, I second this! It was >> suggested to me to use ZFS mirror for my boot volume and that LU will >> run great on that, but if there are issues I''d like to know and know >> when they''re fixed! >> >> >> I looked at the list of LU bugs we''ve fixed recently >> in the S10 update release and all but one were related >> to live upgrades of systems with zones. The only one >> that wasn''t was a bug in generating the metadata >> file (<pool>/boot/menu.lst) on SPARC platforms >> that allows the new "boot -L" option to generate a >> list of available BEs. It''s not a big deal. >> >> My previous mail stating that zfs+liveupgrade worked >> "more or less" was taking into account some of the >> issues we''ve had with zones. Other than zones issues, >> I agree with those who say it works well. >> > > > Zones issues are precisely those I am after - I have zfs root with > numerous zones home server running snv_96 and would like to know what > problems to expect. Can you please tell us more on these ZFS + LU + > zones issues ? > >The main problem is that this configuration of datasets didn''t work: <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name> mounpoint=/ <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zones mountpoint=/zones <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zones/zoneroot1 mountpoint=/zones/zoneroot1 <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zones/zoneroot2 mountpoint=/zones/zoneroot2 that is, where zone roots are datasets that are nested within a "container" dataset. It was the nesting that was the problem. This, however, does work: <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name> mounpoint=/ <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zoneroot1 mountpoint=/zoneroot1 <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zoneroot2 mountpoint=/zoneroot2 This bug will be fixed in Nevada, but it''s not fixed yet. Lori -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080827/f78b4860/attachment.html>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Lori Alt <Lori.Alt at sun.com> wrote:> Cyril Plisko wrote: > > The main problem is that this configuration of datasets didn''t work: > > <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name> mounpoint=/ > <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zones mountpoint=/zones > <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zones/zoneroot1 mountpoint=/zones/zoneroot1 > <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zones/zoneroot2 mountpoint=/zones/zoneroot2 > > that is, where zone roots are datasets that are nested > within a "container" dataset. It was the nesting that was > the problem. This, however, does work: > > <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name> mounpoint=/ > <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zoneroot1 mountpoint=/zoneroot1 > <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name>/zoneroot2 mountpoint=/zoneroot2 > > This bug will be fixed in Nevada, but it''s not fixed yet. > > Lori >Lori, thanks a lot. That valuable thing to know. BTW, I have all my zones nested under <rootpool>/zones, i.e. outside of the <rootpool>/ROOT/<be-name> hierarchy. Does it mean I am lucky ? -- Regards, Cyril