similar to: ZFS and memcntl(..., MC_SYNC, ...)

Hi, there was recently a bug reported against EXT4 that gets triggered by KDE: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/317781 Now I''d like to verify that my understanding of ZFS behavior and implementations is correct, and ZFS is unaffected from this kind of issue. Maybe somebody would like to comment on this. The underlying problem with ext4 is that some kde

Hi all, What is the current preferred method for backing up ZFS data pools, preferably using free ($0.00) software, and assuming that access to individual files (a la ufsbackup/ufsrestore) is required? TIA, -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer

Copying a CD with k3b is no problem, except I want to include on my copy the cbbd data (from freedb.org). I've configured k3b's cddb section according to instructions at <http://www.freedb.org/en/faq.3.html#15> and read every article google could find about "k3b cddb freedb.org config", but still k3b can't manage it. Grip handles getting the cddb data just fine.

<m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about > bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than > I remembered. If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > > added with Svr4: > > Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? > >

Hello, I believe that ZFS and it''s concepts is truly revolutionary to the point that I no longer see any OS as modern if it does not have comparable storage functionality. Therefore I think that file system/disk manager with similar qualities should be written for Linux. Does Sun have plans to dual license ZFS as GPL so it can be ported to native Linux? If not, is it legal to write

Here''s some exciting news! Chris Emura, the Filesystem Development Manager within Apple''s CoreOS organization is interested in porting ZFS to OS X. For more information, please e-mail him directly at cemura at apple.com. Speaking for the zfs team (at Sun), this is great news and we fully support the effort. my powerbook hungers for ZFS, eric This message posted from

Hi all, Recently there''s been discussion [1] in the Linux community about how filesystems should deal with rename(2), particularly in the case of a crash. ext4 was found to truncate files after a crash, that had been written with open("foo.tmp"), write(), close() and then rename("foo.tmp", "foo"). This is because ext4 uses delayed allocation and may not

Why does ZFS report such small directory sizes? For example, take a maildir directory with ten entries: total 2385 drwx------ 8 17121 vmail 10 Jun 8 23:50 . drwx--x--x 14 root root 14 May 12 2006 .. drwx------ 5 17121 vmail 5 May 25 18:16 .Trash drwx------ 5 17121 staff 6 Jun 9 00:01 .testing -rw------- 1 17121 staff 0 Jun

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > >>> > >> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause' > >> license, or BSD-old: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses > > > > Do you like to

When I use copy/paste text into a window running vi, if there is a single line starting with '#', in the pasted content, it adds a # to all subsequent lines and indents each an additional level. Is there some way to eliminate this bizarre behavior, preferably globally and permanently so I don't have to repeat some change for every machine/user where I might log in? -- Les

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: > > > >> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal > >> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same > >> process at runtime unless there is an alternate

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > >> > "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions. > >> > >> OK, great. That clears it up then. > > > > Maybe this helps: > > >

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my > > portability attempts seem to be widely unknown. > > > > Not sure why it matters with a standalone

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with #!/bin/ksh at

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > >> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades? > >> > >> The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a > >> dual

Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote > Linux does not implement stable kernel interfaces. It may be that there is > an intention to do so but I''ve seen problems on Linux resulting from > self-incompatibility on a regular base. To be precise, Linus tries hard to prevent ABI changes in the system call interfaces exported from the kernel, but the glibc team had defeated

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote: > Philip Brown wrote: >> I''ve recently started down the road of production use for zfs, and am hitting my head on some paradigm shifts. I''d like to clarify whether my understanding is correct, and/or whether there are better ways of doing things. >> I have one question for

Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as > > this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL > > in order to make the whole be under GPL. > > The GPL doesn't require that you relicense

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it > became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement > include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution? In 1990, when I started using ksh88, it was totally commercial. Binaries were $$$ and source was