similar to: lofiadm -d keeps a lock on file in an nbmand-mounted zfs

Hello, I get the following errors when I move large e-mails (i.e. about 15MB) into mail files. May 17 13:26:48 mailer3 dovecot: [ID 583609 mail.error] imap(andrew): Error: fdatasync() failed with mbox file /home/andrew/Mail/nbmandON/mbox: Permission denied May 17 13:26:48 mailer3 dovecot: [ID 583609 mail.error] imap(andrew): Error: ftruncate() failed with mbox file

We are running Solaris 10 11/06 on a Sun V240 with 2 CPUS and 8 GB of memory. This V240 is attached to a 3510 FC that has 12 x 300 GB disks. The 3510 is configured as HW RAID 5 with 10 disks and 2 spares and it''s exported to the V240 as a single LUN. We create iso images of our product in the following way (high-level): # mkfile 3g /isoimages/myiso # lofiadm -a /isoimages/myiso

On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:24:08PM -0800, Tony Feldmann wrote: >>You also need to find the relevant kernel/ramdisk for the domU - the jailtime >>images don''t seem to include them, infuriatingly. Johnlev''s respond:- It''s way simpler to export an unpacked ISO over NFS and install via virt-install. regards john I am not sure how to manage on Solaris to get

Hi I''m looking into forensic aspects of ZFS, in particular ways to use ZFS tools to investigate ZFS file systems without writing to the pools. I''m working on a test suite of file system images within VTOC partitions. At the moment, these only have 1 file system per pool per VTOC partition for simplicity''s sake, and I''m using Solaris 10 6/06, which may not

Hi Sorry for the cross-posting, I''d sent this to zfs-code originally. Wrong forum. I''m looking into forensic aspects of ZFS, in particular ways to use ZFS tools to investigate ZFS file systems without writing to the pools. I''m working on a test suite of file system images within VTOC partitions. At the moment, these only have 1 file system per pool per VTOC

As part of looking into a minor issue with the group listed when using runat(1) on a UFS filesystem for Johannes (my Google Summer of Code student work on new basic file privs), I discovered an even bigger issue with UFS and extended attributes. I''ve cc''d ZFS discuss because I used ZFS as the comparison and I believe that ZFS is acting correctly but even then it might not be

The `lofiadm'' man page describes how to export a file as a block device and then use `mkfs -F pcfs'' to create a FAT filesystem on it. Can''t I do the same thing by first creating a zvol and then creating a FAT filesystem on it? Nothing I''ve tried seems to work. Isn''t the zvol just another block device? -- -Gary Mills- -Unix Group-

I was running solaris 10 6/06 with latest kernel patch on ultra 20 (x86) with two internal disks, the root with the OS (c1d0) as UFS and the userland data on c2d0s7 formatted as ZFS. An update made the system unusable and required reinstallation of the OS on c1d0 (solaris 6/06). I cannot figure out how to remount the second drive c2d0s7 which is formatted as ZFS. I have not created any ZFS

Hi, I have two servers running: freebsd with a zpool v28 and a nexenta (opensolaris b134) running zpool v26. Replication (with zfs send/receive) from the nexenta box to the freebsd works fine, but I have a problem accessing my replicated volume. When I''m typing and autocomplete with tab key the command cd /remotepool/us (for /remotepool/users) I get a panic. check the panic @

A ZFS file system reports 1007GB beeing used (df -h / zfs list). When doing a ''du -sh'' on the filesystem root, I only get appr. 300GB which is the correct size. The file system became full during Christmas and I increased the quota from 1 to 1.5 to 2TB and then decreased to 1.5TB. No reservations. Files and processes that filled up the file systems have been removed/stopped.

Hi, ZFS experts, From ZFS release notes, " Solaris 10 6/06 and Solaris 10 11/06: Do Not Place the Root File Systemof a Non-Global Zone on ZFS. The zonepath of a non-global zone should not reside on ZFS for this release. This action might result in patching problems and possibly prevent the system from being upgraded to a later Solaris 10 update release." So my question is, do we

Since most of our customers are predominantly UFS based, we would like to use the same configuration and compare ZFS performance, so that we can announce support for ZFS. We''re planning on measuring the performance of a ZFS file system vs UFS file system. Please look at the following scenario and let us know if this is a good performance measurement criterion.

Hi, I''m preparing a personal TPC-H benchmark. The goal is not to measure or optimize the database performance, but to compare ZFS to UFS in similar configurations. At the moment I''m preparing the tests at home. The test setup is as follows: . Solaris snv_37 . 2 x AMD Opteron 252 . 4 GB RAM . 2 x 80 GB ST380817AS . Oracle 10gR2 (small SGA (320m)) The disks also contain the OS

I''m running Postgresql (v8.1.10) on Solaris 10 (Sparc) from within a non-global zone. I originally had the database "storage" in the non-global zone (e.g. /var/local/pgsql/data on a UFS filesystem) and was getting performance of "X" (e.g. from a TPC-like application: http://www.tpc.org). I then wanted to try relocating the database storage from the zone (UFS

I believe ZFS is causing a panic whenever I attempt to mount an iso image (SXCR build 39) that happens to reside on a ZFS file system. The problem is 100% reproducible. I''m quite new to OpenSolaris, so I may be incorrect in saying it''s ZFS'' fault. Also, let me know if you need any additional information or debug output to help diagnose things. Config: [b]bash-3.00#

I have a Solaris 10 U5 system massively patched so that it supports ZFS pool version 15 (similar to U8, kernel Generic_141445-09), live upgrade components have been updated to Solaris 10 U8 versions from the DVD, and GRUB has been updated to support redundant menus across the UFS boot environments. I have studied the Solaris 10 Live Upgrade manual (821-0438) and am unable to find any

Hey, guys I just do the test for use loop device as vdev for zpool Procedures as followings: 1) mkfile -v 100m disk1 mkfile -v 100m disk2 2) lofiadm -a disk1 /dev/lofi lofiadm -a disk2 /dev/lofi 3) zpool create pool_1and2 /dev/lofi/1 and /dev/lofi/2 4) zpool export pool_1and2 5) zpool import pool_1and2 error info here: bash-3.00# zpool import pool1_1and2 cannot import

I have a test cluster running HA-NFS that shares both ufs and zfs based file systems. However, the behavior that I am seeing is a little perplexing. The Setup: I have Sun Cluster 3.2 on a pair of SunBlade 1000''s connecting to two T3B partner groups through a QLogic switch. All four bricks of the T3B are configured as RAID-5 with a hot spare. One brick from each pair is mirrored with VxVM

I had some trouble installing a zone on ZFS with S10u4 (bug in the postgres packages) that went away when I used a ZVOL-backed UFS filesystem for the zonepath. I thought I''d push on with the experiment (in the hope Live Upgrade would be able to upgrade such a zone). It''s a bit unwieldy, but everything worked reasonably well - performance isn''t much worse than straight

hi all Try to learn how UFS root to ZFS root liveUG work. I download the vbox image of s10u8, it come up as UFS root. add a new disks (16GB) create zpool rpool run lucreate -n zfsroot -p rpool run luactivate zfsroot run lustatus it do show zfsroot will be active in next boot init 6 but it come up with UFS root, lustatus show ufsroot active zpool rpool is mounted but not used by boot Is this a