Working to get ZFS to run on a minimal Solaris 10 U2 configuration. In this scenario, ZFS is included the miniroot which is booted into RAM. When trying to share one of the filesystems, an assertion is raised - see below. If the version of source on OpenSolaris.org matches Solaris 10 U2, then it looks like it''s associated with a popen of /usr/sbin/share. Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks, -- Jim C # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT SYS 83K 163M 30.5K /SYS export 110K 72.8G 25.5K /export export/home 24.5K 72.8G 24.5K /export/home # zpool list NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT SYS 195M 90K 195M 0% ONLINE - export 74G 114K 74.0G 0% ONLINE - # zfs set sharenfs=on export # zfs share export Assertion failed: pclose(fp) == 0, file ../common/libzfs_mount.c, line 399, function zfs_share Abort - core dumped
This indicates that share(1M) didn''t produce any output, but returned a non-zero exit status. I''m not sure why this would happen - can you run the following by hand? # share /export # echo $? Incidentally, the explicit ''zfs share'' isn''t needed, as we automatically share the filesystem when the options are set (which did succeed). - Eric On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:42:02PM -0400, Jim Connors wrote:> > Working to get ZFS to run on a minimal Solaris 10 U2 configuration. In > this scenario, ZFS is included the miniroot which is booted into RAM. > When trying to share one of the filesystems, an assertion is raised - > see below. If the version of source on OpenSolaris.org matches > Solaris 10 U2, then it looks like it''s associated with a popen of > /usr/sbin/share. Can anyone shed any light on this? > > Thanks, > -- Jim C > > > # zfs list > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > SYS 83K 163M 30.5K /SYS > export 110K 72.8G 25.5K /export > export/home 24.5K 72.8G 24.5K /export/home > # zpool list > NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT > SYS 195M 90K 195M 0% ONLINE - > export 74G 114K 74.0G 0% ONLINE - > # zfs set sharenfs=on export > # zfs share export > Assertion failed: pclose(fp) == 0, file ../common/libzfs_mount.c, line > 399, function zfs_share > Abort - core dumped > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss-- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:48:37AM -0700, Eric Schrock wrote:> This indicates that share(1M) didn''t produce any output, but returned > a non-zero exit status. I''m not sure why this would happen - can you > run the following by hand? > > # share /export > # echo $? > > Incidentally, the explicit ''zfs share'' isn''t needed, as we automatically > share the filesystem when the options are set (which did succeed).BTW, on my system running the latest bits this correctly shows: # zfs share test cannot share ''test'': filesystem already shared Which is what I would expect in your case as well. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
Eric Schrock wrote:> This indicates that share(1M) didn''t produce any output, but returned > a non-zero exit status. I''m not sure why this would happen - can you > run the following by hand? > > # share /export > # echo $? >bash-3.00# share bash-3.00# share /export bash-3.00# echo $? 0 Looks like the NFS server is not completely configured yet, and that it requires this zfs share stuff to work first. bash-3.00# svcs -a | grep nfs/server disabled 6:24:31 svc:/network/nfs/server:default bash-3.00# more /var/svc/log/network-nfs-server\:default.log [ Aug 4 06:15:31 Executing start method ("/lib/svc/method/nfs-server start") ] Assertion failed: pclose(fp) == 0, file ../common/libzfs_mount.c, line 399, function zfs_share Abort - core dumped [ Aug 4 06:15:32 Method "start" exited with status 0 ] [ Aug 4 06:15:32 Stopping because process dumped core. ] [ Aug 4 06:15:32 Executing stop method ("/lib/svc/method/nfs-server stop 30") ][ Aug 4 06:15:32 Method "stop" exited with status 0 ] [ Aug 4 06:15:32 Executing start method ("/lib/svc/method/nfs-server start") ] Assertion failed: pclose(fp) == 0, file ../common/libzfs_mount.c, line 399, function zfs_share Abort - core dumped -- Jim C> Incidentally, the explicit ''zfs share'' isn''t needed, as we automatically > share the filesystem when the options are set (which did succeed). > > - Eric > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:42:02PM -0400, Jim Connors wrote: > >> Working to get ZFS to run on a minimal Solaris 10 U2 configuration. In >> this scenario, ZFS is included the miniroot which is booted into RAM. >> When trying to share one of the filesystems, an assertion is raised - >> see below. If the version of source on OpenSolaris.org matches >> Solaris 10 U2, then it looks like it''s associated with a popen of >> /usr/sbin/share. Can anyone shed any light on this? >> >> Thanks, >> -- Jim C >> >> >> # zfs list >> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT >> SYS 83K 163M 30.5K /SYS >> export 110K 72.8G 25.5K /export >> export/home 24.5K 72.8G 24.5K /export/home >> # zpool list >> NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT >> SYS 195M 90K 195M 0% ONLINE - >> export 74G 114K 74.0G 0% ONLINE - >> # zfs set sharenfs=on export >> # zfs share export >> Assertion failed: pclose(fp) == 0, file ../common/libzfs_mount.c, line >> 399, function zfs_share >> Abort - core dumped >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >> > > -- > Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock >
Jim Connors wrote:> > Working to get ZFS to run on a minimal Solaris 10 U2 configuration.What does "minimal" mean? Most likely, you are missing something. -- richard
Richard Elling wrote:> Jim Connors wrote: >> >> Working to get ZFS to run on a minimal Solaris 10 U2 configuration. > > What does "minimal" mean? Most likely, you are missing something. > -- richardYeah. Looking at package and SMF dependencies plus a whole lot of and trial and error, I''ve currently got Solaris down to 47 packages. The nfs/server service for Solaris 10 U2 will first try to do a zfs share. For the next step, I''ll probably comment out that stuff and see I can bring up the nfs server code and share a UFS filesystem using the traditional methods. Once that''s OK I''ll move on to the ZFS portion and investigate. Thanks, -- Jim C
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 05:48:59PM -0400, Jim Connors wrote:> Richard Elling wrote: > >Jim Connors wrote: > >> > >>Working to get ZFS to run on a minimal Solaris 10 U2 configuration. > > > >What does "minimal" mean? Most likely, you are missing something. > > -- richard > Yeah. Looking at package and SMF dependencies plus a whole lot of and > trial and error, I''ve currently got Solaris down to 47 packages. The > nfs/server service for Solaris 10 U2 will first try to do a zfs share. > For the next step, I''ll probably comment out that stuff and see I can > bring up the nfs server code and share a UFS filesystem using the > traditional methods. Once that''s OK I''ll move on to the ZFS portion and > investigate.Out of curiosity, why are you trying to do this? Cheers, - jonathan -- Jonathan Adams, Solaris Kernel Development
> Out of curiosity, why are you trying to do this? >A very valid question, I work in Sun''s OEM Software organization, and for the first time we are seeing real opportunities for Solaris as an embedded OS for appliances. Countless Linux devices boot from flash in a matter of seconds and just work. Why can''t Solaris do the same thing? We are being asked by our PC OEMs for ideas as to how Solaris might fit in this market. This is admittedly an exercise; we need to become more knowledgeable about embedding Solaris and I was looking for an application that is currently unique to Solaris, and thought I''d take a crack at creating a "poor man''s thumper". So currently: o I''ve got a modified Solaris miniroot with ZFS functionality which takes up about 60 MB (The compressed image, which GRUB uses, is less than 30MB). Solaris boots entirely into RAM. From poweron to full functionality, it takes about 45 seconds to boot on a very modest 1GHz Cyrix Mini ITX motherboard. o As Solaris runs entirely in RAM, there is no Solaris footprint on the attached storage. It is entirely dedicated to ZFS. With a little kludgery, all state can be managed from ZFS in effect making Solaris stateless. There should be no serious ramifications to pulling the plug on this device. In fact that''s pretty much how this thing is rebooted right now. o As a potential example, one might consider managing this device via a web-based interface, perhaps not all that different than the way you might manage say, a Linksys router. Yeah I know this is silly, but it''s fun. Time to get back to my real job -- Jim C> Cheers, > - jonathan > >
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:31:38PM -0400, Jim Connors wrote:> > o I''ve got a modified Solaris miniroot with ZFS functionality which > takes up about 60 MB (The compressed image, which GRUB uses, is less > than 30MB). Solaris boots entirely into RAM. From poweron to full > functionality, it takes about 45 seconds to boot on a very modest 1GHz > Cyrix Mini ITX motherboard.That''s great, keep up the good work!!> o As Solaris runs entirely in RAM, there is no Solaris footprint on the > attached storage. It is entirely dedicated to ZFS. With a little > kludgery, all state can be managed from ZFS in effect making Solaris > stateless. There should be no serious ramifications to pulling the plug > on this device. In fact that''s pretty much how this thing is rebooted > right now.This is already one of the reasons I love Solaris so much, with UFS logging I can pull the plug on my U1 firewall and never have to worry about it getting screwed up, this just takes that a step further.> Yeah I know this is silly, but it''s fun. Time to get back to my real jobNot at all silly. Solaris is a fantastic OS, and this would just be yet another great application for it''s greatness to shine. ;) *I* would definitely use it this way, no doubt about it. -brian
MC
2007-Mar-27 16:01 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: Assertion raised during zfs share?, Re: a 30mb ZFS OS install
> o I''ve got a modified Solaris miniroot with ZFS > functionality which > takes up about 60 MB (The compressed image, which > GRUB uses, is less > than 30MB). Solaris boots entirely into RAM. From > poweron to full > functionality, it takes about 45 seconds to boot on a > very modest 1GHz > Cyrix Mini ITX motherboard. > > o As Solaris runs entirely in RAM, there is no > Solaris footprint on the > attached storage. It is entirely dedicated to ZFS. > With a little > ludgery, all state can be managed from ZFS in effect > making Solaris > stateless. There should be no serious ramifications > to pulling the plug > on this device. In fact that''s pretty much how this > thing is rebooted > right now. > > o As a potential example, one might consider managing > this device via a > web-based interface, perhaps not all that different > than the way you > might manage say, a Linksys router. > > Yeah I know this is silly, but it''s fun. Time to get > back to my real job > -- Jim CSilly is the opposite of such a project! I''m just wondering how so much time has passed without it becoming an explicit OpenSolaris project! A RAM-driven headless ZFS file server to compete with FreeNAS, OpenFiler, Windows Storage Server 2003 and Windows Home Server? Where do we sign up for this?!?! :) This message posted from opensolaris.org
Malachi de Ælfweald
2007-Mar-27 16:57 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: Assertion raised during zfs share?, Re: a 30mb ZFS OS install
If I had had that a few months ago, I might have designed a completely different system. Great job! Malachi On 3/27/07, MC <rac at eastlink.ca> wrote:> > > o I''ve got a modified Solaris miniroot with ZFS > > functionality which > > takes up about 60 MB (The compressed image, which > > GRUB uses, is less > > than 30MB). Solaris boots entirely into RAM. From > > poweron to full > > functionality, it takes about 45 seconds to boot on a > > very modest 1GHz > > Cyrix Mini ITX motherboard. > > > > o As Solaris runs entirely in RAM, there is no > > Solaris footprint on the > > attached storage. It is entirely dedicated to ZFS. > > With a little > > ludgery, all state can be managed from ZFS in effect > > making Solaris > > stateless. There should be no serious ramifications > > to pulling the plug > > on this device. In fact that''s pretty much how this > > thing is rebooted > > right now. > > > > o As a potential example, one might consider managing > > this device via a > > web-based interface, perhaps not all that different > > than the way you > > might manage say, a Linksys router. > > > > Yeah I know this is silly, but it''s fun. Time to get > > back to my real job > > -- Jim C > > Silly is the opposite of such a project! I''m just wondering how so much > time has passed without it becoming an explicit OpenSolaris project! > > A RAM-driven headless ZFS file server to compete with FreeNAS, OpenFiler, > Windows Storage Server 2003 and Windows Home Server? Where do we sign up > for this?!?! :) > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20070327/4711be23/attachment.html>