search for: sd10

...d5 0.0 118.0 0.0 15099.9 0.0 35.0 296.7 0 100 sd6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd15...

...ot. Upon reboot, the console reports the following errors. WARNING: /scsi_vhci/disk at g0100015c55fb40900002a00483e34c6 (sd9): disk has 3221225472 blocks, which is too large for a 32-bit kernel WARNING: /iscsi/disk at 0000iqn.1986-03.com.sun%3A02%3Aee2143f2-f5ce-6414-fcda-8035dacfc3730001,0 (sd10): disk has 3221225472 blocks, which is too large for a 32-bit kernl And it continues to do this on the other partition i had created. Ultimately coreadm:default fails bad and the server is stuck at svc.startd[7]: Lost repository event due to disconnection. I am on a Poweredge 2650 with 2xXeon...

...452.7 0.0 46850.7 0.0 0.0 6.0 13.3 0 79 sd8 460.7 0.0 46947.7 0.0 0.0 5.5 11.8 0 73 sd3 426.7 0.0 43726.4 0.0 5.6 0.8 14.9 73 79 sd5 424.7 0.0 44456.4 0.0 6.6 0.9 17.7 83 90 sd9 430.7 0.0 44266.5 0.0 5.8 0.8 15.5 78 84 sd10 421.7 0.0 44451.4 0.0 6.3 0.9 17.1 80 87 sd11 421.7 0.0 44196.1 0.0 5.8 0.8 15.8 75 80 capacity operations bandwidth pool used avail read write read write ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- z 1.06T 3.81...

...ching gone!): extended device statistics device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 sd2 1.3 0.3 6.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0 0 sd10 0.0 99.3 0.0 12698.3 0.0 32.2 324.5 0 97 sd11 0.3 105.9 38.4 12753.3 0.0 31.8 299.9 0 99 sd12 0.0 100.2 0.0 12095.9 0.0 26.4 263.8 0 82 sd13 0.0 102.3 0.0 12959.7 0.0 31.0 303.4 0 94 sd14 0.1 97.2 12.8 12291.8 0.0 30.4 312.0 0 92...

I have just recently (physically) moved a system with 16 hard drives (for the array) and 1 OS drive; and in doing so, I needed to pull out the 16 drives so that it would be light enough for me to lift. When I plugged the drives back in, initially, it went into a panic-reboot loop. After doing some digging, I deleted the file /etc/zfs/zpool.cache. When I try to import the pool using the zpool

...140 at 0 (mpt1): Aug 11 17:47:47 thumper2 Log info 0x31123000 received for target 4. Aug 11 17:47:47 thumper2 scsi_status=0x0, ioc_status=0x804b, scsi_state=0xc Aug 11 17:47:48 thumper2 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /pci at 0,0/pci8086,2690 at 1c/pci1000,3140 at 0/sd at 4,0 (sd10): Aug 11 17:47:48 thumper2 Error for Command: read(10) Error Level: Retryable Aug 11 17:47:48 thumper2 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Requested Block: 252165120 Error Block: 252165120 Aug 11 17:47:48 thumper2 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Vendor: ATA...

I''m looking at the newly-orderable (via Sun) STEC Zeus SSDs, and they''re outrageously priced. http://www.stec-inc.com/product/zeusssd.php I just looked at the Intel X25-E series, and they look comparable in performance. At about 20% of the cost. http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/extreme/index.htm Can anyone enlighten me as to any possible difference between an STEC

Under Solaris 10 u6 , No matter how I configured my ARECA 1261ML Raid card I got errors on all drives that result from SCSI timeout errors. yoda:~ # tail -f /var/adm/messages Jan 9 11:03:47 yoda.asc.edu scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Requested Block: 239683776 Error Block: 239683776 Jan 9 11:03:47 yoda.asc.edu scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Vendor: Seagate

G''day, all, So, I''ve decided to migrate my home server from Linux+swRAID+LVM to Solaris+ZFS, because it seems to hold much better promise for data integrity, which is my primary concern. However, naturally, I decided to do some benchmarks in the process, and I don''t understand why the results are what they are. I though I had a reasonable understanding of ZFS, but now

...41:19 san sata: [ID 514995 kern.info] SATA Gen1 signaling speed (1.5Gbps) Jan 17 06:41:19 san sata: [ID 349649 kern.info] Supported queue depth 32 Jan 17 06:41:19 san sata: [ID 349649 kern.info] capacity = 1953525168 sectors Jan 17 06:41:19 san scsi: [ID 193665 kern.info] sd10 at marvell88sx0: target 5 lun 0 Jan 17 06:41:19 san genunix: [ID 936769 kern.info] sd10 is /pci at 0,0/pci10de,376 at a/pci1033,125 at 0/pci11ab,11ab at 4/disk at 5,0 Jan 17 06:41:19 san genunix: [ID 408114 kern.info] /pci at 0,0/pci10de,376 at a/pci1033,125 at 0/pci11ab,11ab at 4/disk at 5,0 (s...

Zpool split is a wonderful feature and it seems to work well, and the choice of which disk got which name was perfect! But there seems to be an odd anomaly (at least with b132) . Started with c0t1d0s0 running b132 (root pool is called rpool) Attached c0t0d0s0 and waited for it to resilver Rebooted from c0t0d0s0 zpool split rpool spool Rebooted from c0t0d0s0, both rpool and spool were mounted