behavior of full ZFS volume - Solaris

This is a discussion on behavior of full ZFS volume - Solaris ; I had a ZFS volume get full and found that I couldn't delete files! When I attempted to do so, I got: rm: not removed: No space left on device I was able to regain control by destroying a snapshot, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: behavior of full ZFS volume

  1. behavior of full ZFS volume

    I had a ZFS volume get full and found that I couldn't delete files!
    When I attempted to do so, I got:
    rm: not removed: No space left on device

    I was able to regain control by destroying a snapshot, but I'd like to know
    a better method for future use.

  2. Re: behavior of full ZFS volume

    AZ Nomad wrote:
    > I had a ZFS volume get full and found that I couldn't delete files!
    > When I attempted to do so, I got:
    > rm: not removed: No space left on device
    >
    > I was able to regain control by destroying a snapshot, but I'd like to know
    > a better method for future use.


    did you try to cat /dev/null over a file?

    S

  3. Re: behavior of full ZFS volume

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:31:29 +0100, Steve P wrote:
    >AZ Nomad wrote:
    >> I had a ZFS volume get full and found that I couldn't delete files!
    >> When I attempted to do so, I got:
    >> rm: not removed: No space left on device
    >>
    >> I was able to regain control by destroying a snapshot, but I'd like to know
    >> a better method for future use.


    >did you try to cat /dev/null over a file?


    nope, but I'll try that if it ever gets full again.

  4. Re: behavior of full ZFS volume

    On 20 Aug 2008 23:07:17 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
    >In article ,
    > AZ Nomad writes:
    >> I had a ZFS volume get full and found that I couldn't delete files!
    >> When I attempted to do so, I got:
    >> rm: not removed: No space left on device
    >>
    >> I was able to regain control by destroying a snapshot, but I'd like to know
    >> a better method for future use.


    >Well, that is the reason. The file (and parent directory) exist in
    >the snapshot, and are likely sharing same blocks with the current
    >ones. In order to delete the file, ZFS will have to make a new copy
    >of the parent directory block with the file missing (copy on write).
    >This needs a new block and there isn't one. Since the file is in a
    >snapshot, then deleting it would not have freed up any space from it
    >anyway, so deleting the file was actually just going to consume more
    >disk space. Hence, you don't have enough space to delete the file!


    WTF didn't ZFS leave a little room for the super-user to fix things?


  5. Re: behavior of full ZFS volume

    On 21 Aug 2008 08:45:29 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
    >How would leaving any room have helped?

    Are you a complete idiot?
    A little room would have permitted me to perform rm's. I don't like having
    to ****can a snapshot in order to regain control of the volume.


    >You can do this by applying a quota to the filesystem and raising it,
    >if you want to.

    I guess I'd have to if ZFS ignores the concept of leaving a percent for the su.

  6. Re: behavior of full ZFS volume

    AZ Nomad wrote:
    > On 21 Aug 2008 08:45:29 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
    >> How would leaving any room have helped?

    > Are you a complete idiot?
    > A little room would have permitted me to perform rm's. I don't like having
    > to ****can a snapshot in order to regain control of the volume.
    >
    >
    >> You can do this by applying a quota to the filesystem and raising it,
    >> if you want to.

    > I guess I'd have to if ZFS ignores the concept of leaving a percent for the su.


    Wouldn't that percentage have to be 50, given that a user can create one
    BIG file of the size of the FS?


    /Thommy M.
    --
    /"\ Join the ASCII | Thommy M. Malmström
    \ / ribbon campaign | AB Hardeberga IT
    X against HTML mail | Skiffervägen 23, 224 78 Lund
    / \ and postings | +46 70 969 57 93
    ================================================== =====================
    http://www.at-hardeberga.com thommym (at) at-hardeberga.com
    ================================================== =====================
    "The box said 'Windows 2000 Server or better', so I installed Solaris."
    ================================================== =====================

  7. Re: behavior of full ZFS volume

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:16:19 GMT, Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
    >AZ Nomad wrote:
    >> On 21 Aug 2008 08:45:29 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
    >>> How would leaving any room have helped?

    >> Are you a complete idiot?
    >> A little room would have permitted me to perform rm's. I don't like having
    >> to ****can a snapshot in order to regain control of the volume.
    >>
    >>
    >>> You can do this by applying a quota to the filesystem and raising it,
    >>> if you want to.

    >> I guess I'd have to if ZFS ignores the concept of leaving a percent for the su.


    >Wouldn't that percentage have to be 50, given that a user can create one
    >BIG file of the size of the FS?


    In real life, no.

  8. Re: behavior of full ZFS volume

    On Aug 21, 1:47*pm, AZ Nomad wrote:
    > On 21 Aug 2008 08:45:29 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:>How would leaving any room have helped?
    >
    > Are you a complete idiot?
    > A little room would have permitted me to perform rm's. *I don't like having
    > to ****can a snapshot in order to regain control of the volume.


    Keep in mind that the space reservation was done because UFS performs
    very badly when the filesystem is nearly full, and not for a wannabe
    pro admin like you who can't manage his storage

+ Reply to Thread