similar to: Data distribution not even between vdevs

I seem to have managed to end up with a pool that is confused abut its children disks. The pool is faulted with corrupt metadata: pool: d state: FAULTED status: The pool metadata is corrupted and the pool cannot be opened. action: Destroy and re-create the pool from a backup source. see: http://illumos.org/msg/ZFS-8000-72 scan: none requested config: NAME STATE

Hello All, I have a zpool that consists of 2 raidz vdevs (raidz1-0 and raidz1-1). The first vdev is 4 1.5TB drives. The second was 4 500GB drives. I replaced the 4 500GB drives with 4 3TB drives. I replaced one at time, and resilvered each. Now the process is complete, I expected to have an extra 10TB (4*2.5TB) of raw space, but it''s still the same amount of space. I did an export and

Hi, One of my colleagues was confused by the output of ''zpool status'' on a pool where a hot spare is being resilvered in after a drive failure: $ zpool status data pool: data state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will continue to function, possibly in a degraded state. action: Wait for the resilver to complete. scrub:

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

Hi all, I have a 5 drive RAIDZ volume with data that I''d like to recover. The long story runs roughly: 1) The volume was running fine under FreeBSD on motherboard SATA controllers. 2) Two drives were moved to a HP P411 SAS/SATA controller 3) I *think* the HP controllers wrote some volume information to the end of each disk (hence no more ZFS labels 2,3) 4) In its "auto

Hi, Experts: A customer has X4500 and the boot drives mirrored (c5t0d0s0 and c5t4d0s0) by SVM, The ZFS uses the two other partitions on these two drives(c5t0d0s3 and c5t4d0s3). If we need to replace the disk drive c5t0d0, do we need to do anything on the ZFS (c5t0d0s3 and c5t4d0s3) first or just follow the regular boot drive replacement procedure? Below is the summary of their current ZFS

I have a question about using mixed vdev in the same zpool and what the community opinion is on the matter. Here is my setup: I have four 1TB drives and two 500GB drives. When I first setup ZFS I was under the assumption that it does not really care much on how you add devices to the pool and it assumes you are thinking things through. But when I tried to create a pool (called group) with four

Replacing my current media server with another larger capacity media server. Also switching over to solaris/zfs. Anyhow we have 24 drive capacity. These are for large sequential access (large media files) used by no more than 3 or 5 users at a time. I''m inquiring as to what the best configuration for this is for vdevs. I''m considering the following configurations 4 x x6

Hello, I was hoping that this would work: http://blogs.sun.com/zhangfan/entry/how_to_turn_a_mirror I have 4x(1TB) disks, one of which is filled with 800GB of data (that I cant delete/backup somewhere else) > root at FSK-Backup:~# zpool create -f ambry raidz1 c4t0d0 c5t0d0 c5t1d0 > /dev/lofi/1 > root at FSK-Backup:~# zpool list > NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT

Hi, I was first attracted to ZFS (and therefore OpenSolaris) because I thought that ZFS allowed the used of different sized disks in raidz pools without wasted disk space. Further research has confirmed that this isn''t possible--by default. I have seen a little bit of documentation around using ZFS with slices. I think this might be the answer, but I would like to be sure what the

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

After having read this mailing list for a little while, I get the impression that there are at least some people who regularly experience on-disk corruption that ZFS should be able to report and handle. I?ve been running a raidz1 on three 1TB consumer disks for approx. 2 years now (about 90% full), and I scrub the pool every 3-4 weeks and have never had a single error. From the oft-quoted 10^14

I have a customer who has implemented the following layout: As you can see, he has mostly raidz zvols but has one raidz2 in the same zpool. What are the implications here? Is this a bad thing to do? Please elaborate. Thanks, Scott Gaspard Scott.J.Gaspard at Sun.COM > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > > chipool1 ONLINE 0 0 0 > >

Hi all! I got a short question regarding data migration: I want to copy my data (~2TB) from an old machine to a new machine with a new raidz1 (6 disks x 1,5TB each ). Unfortunately this is not working properly via network due to various (driver) problems on the old machine. So my idea was: to borrow one disk from the new raidz1 (leaving the raid in degraded, but working status) attach the now

I executed sync just before this happened.... ultra:ultra# mdb -k unix.0 vmcore.0 Loading modules: [ unix krtld genunix specfs dtrace ufs sd pcipsy md ip sctp usba fctl nca crypto zfs random nfs ptm cpc fcip sppp lofs ] > $c vpanic(7b653bd8, 7036fca0, 7036fc70, 7b652990, 0, 60002d0b480) zio_done+0x284(60002d0b480, 0, a8, 7036fca0, 0, 60000b08d80) zio_vdev_io_assess+0x178(60002d0b480, 8000,

Hi experts zpool import shows some weird config of an old zpool bash-3.00# zpool import pool: data1 id: 7539031628606861598 state: FAULTED status: One or more devices are missing from the system. action: The pool cannot be imported. Attach the missing devices and try again. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-3C config: data1 UNAVAIL insufficient replicas

I''ve installed Open Solaris 2009.06 on a machine with 5 identical 1TB wd green drives to create a ZFS nas. The intended install is one drive dedicated to the OS and the remaining 4 drives in a raidz1 configuration. The install is working fine, but creating the raidz1 pool and rebooting is causing the machine report "Cannot find active partition" upon reboot. Below is command

Hi, I have Dell md1200 connected to two heads ( Dell R710 ). The heads have Perc H800 card and drives are configured in Raid0 ( Virtual Disk) in the RAID controller. One of the drives had crashed and is replaced by a spare. Resilvering was triggered but fails to complete due to drives going offline. I have to reboot the head ( R710) and drives comes online. This happened repeatedly when

zdb -C shows an shift value on each vdev in my pool, I was just wondering if it is vdev specific, or pool wide. Google didn''t seem to know. I''m considering a mixed pool with some "advanced format" (4KB sector) drives, and some normal 512B sector drives, and was wondering if the ashift can be set per vdev, or only per pool. Theoretically, this would save me some size on

What does it mean for a vdev to have an invalid configuration and how can it be fixed or reset? As you can see, the following pool can no longer be imported: (Note that the "last accessed by another system" warning is because I moved these drives to my test workstation.) ~$ zpool import -f pool0 cannot import ''pool0'': invalid vdev configuration ~$ zpool import pool: