search for: c0t6d0

I am curious why zpool status reports a pool to be in the DEGRADED state after a drive in a raidz2 vdev has been successfully replaced. In this particular case drive c0t6d0 was failing so I ran, zpool offline home/c0t6d0 zpool replace home c0t6d0 c8t1d0 and after the resilvering finished the pool reports a degraded state. Hopefully this is incorrect. At this point is the vdev in question now has full raidz2 protected even though it is listed as "DEGRADED"?...

...4 158447 1% /poolA poola 65024 24 64938 1% /poola testpool 1007616 26 802611 1% /testpool testpool/usr 1007616 204881 802611 21% /testpool/usr zfszone 471040 210344 260377 45% /zfszone /vol/dev/dsk/c0t6d0/sol_10_305_sparc/s5 30 4 24 15% /cdrom/sol_10_305_sparc/s5 /vol/dev/dsk/c0t6d0/sol_10_305_sparc/s4 30 4 24 15% /cdrom/sol_10_305_sparc/s4 /vol/dev/dsk/c0t6d0/sol_10_305_sparc/s3 30...

...0 c0t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t4d0 ONLINE 0...

...c0t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 DEGRADED 0 0 0 spare DEGRADED 0 0 2.89M c0t1d0 REMOVED 0 0 0 c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 59.3G resilvered c1t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0...

...il read write read write ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- z 1.06T 3.81T 2.92K 0 360M 0 raidz1 564G 2.86T 1.51K 0 187M 0 c0t1d0 - - 457 0 47.3M 0 c1t1d0 - - 457 0 47.4M 0 c0t6d0 - - 456 0 47.4M 0 c0t4d0 - - 458 0 47.4M 0 c1t3d0 - - 463 0 47.3M 0 raidz1 518G 970G 1.40K 0 174M 0 c1t4d0 - - 434 0 44.7M 0 c1t6d0 - - 433 0 45.3M...

...mith-desktop,8G,,,190853,95,119364,42,,,245770,28,421.4,1,16,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++ zpool create internal c0t0d0 zpool add internal c0t1d0 zpool add internal c0t2d0 zpool add internal c0t3d0 zpool add internal c0t4d0 zpool add internal c0t5d0 zpool add internal c0t6d0 zpool add internal c0t7d0 ./bonnie++ -d /internal/ -s 8g -u0 -f Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec...

...c1t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE...

So, my Areca controller has been complaining via email of read errors for a couple days on SATA channel 8. The disk finally gave up last night at 17:40. I got to say I really appreciate the Areca controller taking such good care of me. For some reason, I wasn''t able to log into the server last night or in the morning, probably because my home dir was on the zpool with the failed disk

So, I took four 1.5TB drives and made RAIDZ, RAIDZ1 and RAIDZ2 pools. The sizes for the pools were 5.3TB, 4.0TB, and 2.67TB respectively. The man page for RAIDZ states that "The raidz vdev type is an alias for raidz1." So why was there a difference between the sizes for RAIDZ and RAIDZ1? Shouldn''t the size be the same for "zpool create raidz ..." and "zpool

I am converting a 4 disk raidz from osx to opensolaris. And I want to keep the data intact. I want zfs to get access to the full disk instead of a slice. I believe like c8d0 instead off c8d0s1. I wanted to do this 1 disk at a time and let it resilver. what is the proper way to do this. I tried, I believe from memory : zpool replace -f rpool c8d1s1 c8d1 but it didn''t let me do that. then I

...c0t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2 DEGRADED 0 0 0 c1t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 replacing DEGRADED 0 0 0 c4t6d0 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open c4t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0...

...0 c5t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t7d0 ONLINE 0...

...c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t9d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t10d0 ONL...

Hello all, First off, i''m talking about a SXDE build 89. Sorry if that was discussed here before, but i did not find anything related on the archives, and i think is a "weird" issue... If i try to remove a specific file, i got: # rm file1 rm: file1: No such file or directory # rm -rf dir2 rm: Unable to remove directory dir2: Directory not empty Take a look: ------- cut

...e raidz1 DEGRADED c0t0d0 ONLINE c0t1d0 ONLINE replacing ONLINE c0t2d0 ONLINE c0t7d0 ONLINE c0t3d0 UNAVAIL cannot open c0t4d0 ONLINE c0t5d0 ONLINE c0t6d0 ONLINE Additional devices are known to be part of this pool, though their exact configuration cannot be determined. Now i should have enough online devices to mount and get my data off however no luck. I''m not really sure where to go at this point. Do i have to fake...

...t; c4t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > c5t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > c6t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > c7t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > c1t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > c4t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > c5t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > c6t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > c7t6d0 ONLINE...

...raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2 ON...

Currently I''m trying to figure out the best zfs layout for a thumper wrt. to read AND write performance. I did some simple mkfile 512G tests and found out, that per average ~ 500 MB/s seems to be the maximum on can reach (tried initial default setup, all 46 HDDs as R0, etc.). According to http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/ArchitectureWP_062806.pdf I would

Hey folks, I guess this is an odd question to be asking here, but I could do with some feedback from anybody who''s actually using ZFS in anger. I''m about to go live with ZFS in our company on a new fileserver, but I have some real concerns about whether I can really trust ZFS to keep my data alive if things go wrong. This is a big step for us, we''re a 100% windows

Hi All, I''ve just built an 8 disk zfs storage box, and I''m in the testing phase before I put it into production. I''ve run into some unusual results, and I was hoping the community could offer some suggestions. I''ve bascially made the switch to Solaris on the promises of ZFS alone (yes I''m that excited about it!), so naturally I''m looking