similar to: Using a data recovery company to get data from a drive?

I would like to pick the brains of the ZFS experts on this list: What would you do next to try and recover this zfs pool? I have a ZFS RAIDZ1 pool named bank0 that I cannot import. It was composed of 4 1.5 TiB disks. One disk is totally dead. Another had SMART errors, but using GNU ddrescue I was able to copy all the data off successfully. I have copied all 3 remaining disks as images using

New server build with Solaris-10 u5/08, on a SunFire t5220, and this is our first rollout of ZFS and Zpools. Have 8 disks, boot disk is hardware mirrored (c1t0d0 + c1t1d0) Created Zpool my_pool as RaidZ using 5 disks + 1 spare: c1t2d0, c1t3d0, c1t4d0, c1t5d0, c1t6d0, and spare c1t7d0 I am working on alerting & recovery plans for disks failures in the zpool. As a test, I have pulled disk

On 10/30/15 17:30, Max Pyziur wrote: > > Greetings, > > I have three drives; they are all SATA Seagate Barracudas; two are > 500GB; the third is a 2TB. > > I don't have a clear reason why they have failed (possibly due to a > deep, off-brand, flakey mobo; but it's still inconclusive, but I would > like to find a disaster recovery service that can hopefully

Hi All, I posted this in a different threat, but it was recommended that I post in this one. Basically, I have a 3 drive raidz array on internal Seagate drives. running build 64nv. I purchased 3 add''l USB drives with the intention of mirroring and then migrating the data to the new USB drives. I accidentally added the 3 USB drives in a raidz to my original storage pool, so now I have 2

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

Sysrescue cd. If the drives are still viable and you have a spare beater system handy the data rescue should be straight forward. Done it several times. HIH. Fred Roller On Oct 30, 2015 5:30 PM, "Max Pyziur" <pyz at brama.com> wrote: > > Greetings, > > I have three drives; they are all SATA Seagate Barracudas; two are 500GB; > the third is a 2TB. > > I

The time has come to expand my OpenSolaris NAS. Right now I have 6 1TB Samsung Spinpoints in a Raidz2 configuration. I also have a mirrored root pool. The Raidz2 configuration should be for my most critical data - but right now it is holding everything so I need to add some more pools and move some data around. To start I need a vdev I will call "temp" that acts as a networked bit

On 10/31/15 15:17, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Fri, October 30, 2015 9:31 pm, Mark LaPierre wrote: >> On 10/30/15 17:30, Max Pyziur wrote: >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> I have three drives; they are all SATA Seagate Barracudas; two are >>> 500GB; the third is a 2TB. >>> >>> I don't have a clear reason why they have

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

I?m running centos 4.3 (2.6.9-22.ELsmp) on a box ,and running windows XP on vmware 5.5.1. I have 3 scsi disk on this server,sda for linux system,sdb for vmware disk,and sdc for other. Resently I found that something wrong with the second disk,the guest os windowsxp copying files from a samba server(another box) to it?s disk,and for some time,maybe 5hours,3or1hours, the kernel said that sdb is

Greetings, I have three drives; they are all SATA Seagate Barracudas; two are 500GB; the third is a 2TB. I don't have a clear reason why they have failed (possibly due to a deep, off-brand, flakey mobo; but it's still inconclusive, but I would like to find a disaster recovery service that can hopefully recover the data. Much thanks for any and all suggestions, Max Pyziur pyz at

I have a x4540 with a single pool made from a bunch of raidz1''s with 2 spares (solaris 10 u7). Been running great for over a year, but I''ve had my first event. A day ago the system activated one of the spares c4t7d0, but given the status below, I''m not sure what to do next. # zpool status pool: pool1 state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed after 2h25m

Since ZFS already has error correction, would drives that limit the time a hard drive attempts to recover from errors such as WD RE drives or Seagate ES drive be necessary? Would it be safe to use standard hard drives without the Time Limited Error Recovery feature in a RAIDZ array? This message posted from opensolaris.org

Solaris and/or ZFS are badly confused about drive IDs. The "c5t0d0" names are very far removed from the real world, and possibly they''ve gotten screwed up somehow. Is devfsadm supposed to fix those, or does it only delete excess? Reason I believe it''s confused: zpool status shows mirror-0 on c9t3d0, c9t2d0, and c9t5d0. But format shows the one remaining Seagate

Hi list, I''ve got a system with 3 WD and 3 seagate drives. Today I got an email that zpool status indicated one of the seagate drives as REMOVED. I''ve tried clearing the error but the pool becomes faulted again. Taken out the offending drive and plugged into a windows box with seatools install. Unfortunately seatools finds nothing wrong with the drive. Windows seems to see

On Fri, October 30, 2015 9:31 pm, Mark LaPierre wrote: > On 10/30/15 17:30, Max Pyziur wrote: >> >> Greetings, >> >> I have three drives; they are all SATA Seagate Barracudas; two are >> 500GB; the third is a 2TB. >> >> I don't have a clear reason why they have failed (possibly due to a >> deep, off-brand, flakey mobo; but it's still

In the process of replacing a raidz1 of four 500GB drives with four 1.5TB drives on the third one I ran into an interesting issue. The process was to remove the old drive, put the new drive in and let it rebuild. The problem was the third drive I put in had a hardware fault. That caused both drives (c4t2d0) to show as FAULTED. I couldn''t put a new 1.5TB drive in as a replacement -

Hi people, I am building a cheap remote rsync backup server using a software raid 5 array of 4 500GB disks. What I have available on the market is: 1. HITACHI GST Deskstar T7K500 500GB 7200rpm 16MB cache Serial ATA II-300 2. SEAGATE Barracuda 7200.10 with NCQ 500GB 7200rpm 16MB cache Serial ATA II-300 3. Western Digital 500GB SATAII RAID EDITION Caviar SE16 7200rpm 8.9ms 16MB cache I am

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

Dear All, My servers running on CentOS 5.5 x86_64 with kernel 2.6.18.194.17.4.el gigabyte motherboard and 2 harddisks (seagate 500GB). My CentOS box configured RAID 1, yesterday and today I had the same problem on 2 servers with same configuration. See the following error messages for details: EXT3-fs: INFO: recovery required on readonly filesystem. EXT3-fs: write access will be enabled during