similar to: ZFS znapshot of zone that contains ufs SAN attached file systems

This may not be the answer you''re looking for, but I don''t know if it''s something you''ve thought of. If you''re pulling a LUN from an expensive array, with multiple HBA''s in the system, why not run mpxio? If you ARE running mpxio, there shouldn''t be an issue with a path dropping. I have the setup above in my test lab and pull cables

All, I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable). Thanks, Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hi All, Its been a while since I touched zfs. Is the below still the case with zfs and hardware raid array? Do we still need to provide two luns from the hardware raid then zfs mirror those two luns? http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#hardwareraid Thanks, Shawn -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

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, Bug ID: 6775100 stat() performance on files on zfs should be improved was fixed in snv_119. I wanted to do a quick comparison between snv_117 and snv_122 on my workstation to see what kind of improvement there is. I wrote a small C program which does a stat() N times in a loop. This is of course a micro-benchmark. Additionally it doesn''t cover a case if doing stat() on not cached

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

I have read the ZFS best practice guide located at http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide However I have questions whether we support using slices for data on the same disk as we use for ZFS boot. What issues does this create if we have a disk failure in a mirrored environment? Does anyone have examples of customers doing this in production environments. I

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

Hi ZFS gods, I have a x4500 I wish to upgrade from a SVM UFS Sol 10u5 to a ZFS rpool 10u6 or Opensolaris. Since I know (via backing up my sharetab) what shares I need to have (all nfs share - no cifs on this 4500 - YAY) and have organised downtime for this server, would it be easier for me to go to Solaris 10u6 (or opensolaris) by just installing from scratch and re-importing the ZPOOL

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

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

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

Hi all, Does zfs and UFS will sit on same machine?. if yes is it possible to share zfs files using CIFS. Thanks Naveen -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

No such facility exists to automagically convert an existing UFS filesystem to ZFS. You''ve to create a new ZFS pool/filesystem and then move your data. This message posted from opensolaris.org

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

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

I have two 200GB ISCSI LUN''s setup on each X4600 M2 running Solaris 10 X86 update 4. The data on these ISCSI disks for one server will be Apache and on the other server MYSQL. My question is should I setup these disks as a ZFS Pool filesystem or as a UFS soft partition (eventually the LUN will be expanded). What would offer the best performance and easier to expand later on? What

I have two 200GB ISCSI LUN''s setup on each X4600 M2 running Solaris 10 X86 update 4. The data on these ISCSI disks for one server will be Apache and on the other server MYSQL. My question is should I setup these disks as a ZFS Pool filesystem or as a UFS soft partition (eventually the LUN will be expanded). What would offer the best performance and easier to expand later on? What

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

Frank, Please find comments in-line below... All, Note that I''ll be off-line for some doctor''s appointments part of the day Friday and will be out of the country for a week starting Saturday. So, I may be very slow responding to issues raised here for a while. Cheers, Don >Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:41:53 +0100 (BST) >From: Frank Hofmann <Frank.Hofmann at