search for: prtvtoc

Well this is a new one.... Illumos/Openindiana let me add a device as a hot spare that evidently has a different sector alignment than all of the other drives in the array. So now I''m at the point that I /need/ a hot spare and it doesn''t look like I have it. And, worse, the other spares I have are all the same model as said hot spare. Is there anything I can do with this or

I have a system that I''m trying to bring up with a mirrored rpool. I''m using DarkStar''s ZFS Root Mirror blog post as a guide (http://darkstar-solaris.blogspot.com/2008/09/zfs-root-mirror.html). When I get to step 3 I execute: pfexec prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c7d0s2 | fmthard -s - /dev/rdsk/c7d1s2 I get: fmthard: Cannot open device /dev/rdsk/c7d1s2 - Permission denied Any ideas as to what i might be doing wrong here? Thanks, Brian -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

...se the V880 has more drives to offer, that are not used at the moment. So I''d like to add in a mirror of c1t1d0 and c1t4d0 : # zpool add -f neptune_rpool c1t1d0 cannot label ''c1t1d0'': EFI labeled devices are not supported on root pools. OKay .. I can live with that. # prtvtoc -h /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s0 | fmthard -s - /dev/rdsk/c1t1d0s0 fmthard: New volume table of contents now in place. # prtvtoc -h /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s0 | fmthard -s - /dev/rdsk/c1t4d0s0 fmthard: New volume table of contents now in place. # zpool add -f neptune_rpool c1t1d0s0 cannot add to ''neptune_...

OK, I''ve got a proble I can''t solve by myself. I''ve installed solaris 11 using just one drive. Now I want to create a mirror by attached a second one tot the rpool. However, the first one has NO partition 9 but the second one does. This way the sizes differ if I create a partiotion 0 (needed because it''s a boot disk).. How can I get the second disk look

Hi All, I had a slice with zfs file system which I want to mirror, I followed the procedure mentioned in the amin guide I am getting this error. Can you tell me what I did wrong? root # zpool list NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT export 254G 230K 254G 0% ONLINE - root # echo |format Searching for disks...done

Hi, I''m running FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE with a 500-gig ZFS drive. Recently I''ve encountered a FreeBSD problem (PR kern/128083) and decided about updating the motherboard BIOS. It looked like the update went right but after that I was shocked to see my ZFS destroyed! Rolling the BIOS back did not help. Now it looks like that: # zpool status pool: tank state: UNAVAIL status:

On Solaris 10 If I install using ZFS root on only one drive is there a way to add another drive as a mirror later? Sorry if this was discussed already. I searched the archives and couldn''t find the answer. Thank you.

In my new oracle server, sol11exp, it''s using multipath device names... Presently I have two disks attached: (I removed the other 10 disks for now, because these device names are so confusing. This way I can focus on *just* the OS disks.) 0. c0t5000C5003424396Bd0 <SEAGATE-ST32000SSSUN2.0-0514 cyl 3260 alt 2 hd 255 sec 252> /scsi_vhci/disk at g5000c5003424396b

Greeting All I have create a pool that consists oh a hard disk and a ssd as a cache zpool create hdd c11t0d0p3 zpool add hdd cache c8t0d0p0 - cache device I ran an OLTP bench mark to emulate a DMBS One I ran the benchmark, the pool started create the database file on the ssd cache device ??????????? can any one explain why this happening ? is not L2ARC is used to absorb the evicted data

Banging my head against a Seagate 3TB USB3 drive. Its marketing name is: Seagate Expansion 3 TB USB 3.0 Desktop External Hard Drive STAY3000102 format(1M) shows it identify itself as: Seagate-External-SG11-2.73TB Under both Solaris 10 and Solaris 11x, I receive the evil message: | I/O request is not aligned with 4096 disk sector size. | It is handled through Read Modify Write but the performance

...local rpool delegation on default rpool autoreplace off default rpool cachefile - default rpool failmode wait default ormandj at neutron.corenode.com:~$ ormandj at neutron.corenode.com:~$ pfexec prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c6d0s0 * /dev/rdsk/c6d0s0 partition map * * Dimensions: * 512 bytes/sector * 63 sectors/track * 255 tracks/cylinder * 16065 sectors/cylinder * 18240 cylinders * 18238 accessible cylinders * * Flags: * 1: unmountable * 10: read-only * * First...

...device /dev/rdsk/c13d0s2 $ pfexec installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c13d0 raw device must be a root slice (not s2) What am I doing wrong? I believe that new device is SMI-labeled (I formated it and set SMI label), however I don''t know how to check it... $ pfexec prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c13d0s0 * /dev/rdsk/c13d0s0 partition map * * Dimensions: * 512 bytes/sector * 63 sectors/track * 255 tracks/cylinder * 16065 sectors/cylinder * 60799 cylinders * 60797 accessible cylinders * * Flags: * 1: unmountable * 10: read-only * * Unallocated space: * First...

Hi all One of the rpool drives on this server died the other day, so I got a replacement that was 1 cylinder larger (60798 vs 60797). Still, I tried prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c7d0s2 | fmthard -s - /dev/rdsk/c6d0s2 zpool replace worked and the pool resilvered within a few minutes. Now, installing grub fails. root at prv-backup:~# installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c6d0s0 Partition 0 of the disk has an incorrect offset Unable to gather d...

I build two zfs filesystems using b29 (from brandz). I then re-installed solaris express b28, preserving the zfs filesystems. When I tried to "zpool import" my zfs filesystems I got a kernel panic: > debugging crash dump vmcore.0 (32-bit) from blackbird > operating system: 5.11 snv_28 (i86pc) > panic message: > ZFS: bad checksum (read on /dev/dsk/c1d0p0 off 24d5e000: zio

(for some reason I cannot find my original thread..so I''m reposting it) I am trying to move my data off of a 40gb 3.5" drive to a 40gb 2.5" drive. This is in a Netra running Solaris 10. Originally what I did was: zpool attach -f rpool c0t0d0 c0t2d0. Then I did an installboot on c0t2d0s0. Didnt work. I was not able to boot from my second drive (c0t2d0). I cannot remember

Hi, in preparation to try zfs boot on sparc I installed all recent patches incl. feature patches comming from s10s_u3wos_10 and after reboot finally 137137-09 (still having everything on UFS). Now it doesn''t boot at anymore: ############################### Sun Fire V240, No Keyboard Copyright 2006 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. OpenBoot 4.22.23, 2048 MB memory installed,

hi all, i would like to ask some questions regarding best practices for zfs recovery if disk errors occur. currently i have zfs boot (nv62) and the following setup: 2 si3224 controllers (each 4 sata disks) 8 sata disks, same size, same type i have two pools: a) rootpool b) datapool the rootpool is a mirrored pool, where every disk has a slice (the s0, which is 5 % of the whole disk) and this

...500341AS________________9VS23KW8/a'' phys_path: ''/pci at 0,0/pci8086,244e at 1e/pci11ab,11ab at 2/disk at 4,0:a'' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 352 ############################################################################### nmc at nexenta1:/$ !prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c0t5d0 * /dev/rdsk/c0t5d0 partition map * * Dimensions: * 512 bytes/sector * 2930277168 sectors * 2930277101 accessible sectors * * Flags: * 1: unmountable * 10: read-only * * Unallocated space: * First Sector Last * Sector Count Sector * 34...

...combined the two files (I tried various approaches eg. cat and dd with the append directive) however only the first two vdev labels appear to be readable in the resulting s0image_s0.dd? The resulting file size, which I expect is largely good sectors with padding for bad sectors, matches that of the prtvtoc s0 sectors count multiplied by 512. Can anyone advise .. why I am unable to read the third and forth vdev labels once the start and end files are combined? Is there another approach that may prove more fruitful? Once I have the file (with labels being in the correct places) I was intending to at...

Hello everyone, As one of the steps of improving my ZFS home fileserver (snv_134) I wanted to replace a 1TB disk with a newer one of the same vendor/model/size because this new one has 64MB cache vs. 16MB in the previous one. The removed disk will be use for backups, so I thought it''s better off to have a 64MB cache disk in the on-line pool than in the backup set sitting off-line all