similar to: 4k sector support in Solaris 11?

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

My setup: A SuperMicro 24-drive chassis with Intel dual-processor motherboard, three LSI SAS3081E controllers, and 24 SATA 2TB hard drives, divided into three pools with each pool a single eight-disk RAID-Z2. (Boot is an SSD connected to motherboard SATA.) This morning I got a cheerful email from my monitoring script: "Zchecker has discovered a problem on bigdawg." The full output is

I currently am getting good speeds out of my existing system (8x 2TB in a RAIDZ2 exported over fibre channel) but there''s no such thing as too much speed, and these other two drive bays are just begging for drives in them.... If I go to 10x 2TB in a RAIDZ3, will the extra spindles increase speed, or will the extra parity writes reduce speed, or will the two factors offset and leave things

I''m building another 24-bay rackmount storage server, and I''m considering what drives to put in the bays. My chassis is a Supermicro SC846A, so the backplane supports SAS or SATA; my controllers are LSI3081E, again supporting SAS or SATA. Looking at drives, Seagate offers an enterprise (Constellation) 2TB 7200RPM drive in both SAS and SATA configurations; the SAS model offers

Anyone here using http://www.sonnettech.com/product/tempossd.html with a zfs-capable OS? Is e.g. OpenIndiana supported? Thanks.

Hello all, I found this dialog on the zfs-devel at zfsonlinux.org list, and I''d like someone to confirm-or-reject the discussed statement. Paraphrasing in my words and understanding: "Labels, including Uberblock rings, are fixed 256KB in size each, of which 128KB is the UB ring. Normally there is 1KB of data in one UB, which gives 128 TXGs to rollback to. When ashift=12 is

Hi. Is the problem with ZFS supporting 4k sectors or is the problem mixing 512 byte and 4k sector disks in one pool, or something else? I have seen alot of discussion on the 4k issue but I haven''t understood what the actual problem ZFS has with 4k sectors is. It''s getting harder and harder to find large disks with 512 byte sectors so what should we do? TIA...

Hi, my oi151 based home NAS is approaching a frightening "drive space" level. Right now the data volume is a 4*1TB Raid-Z1, 3 1/2" local disks individually connected to an 8 port LSI 6Gbit controller. So I can either exchange the disks one by one with autoexpand, use 2-4 TB disks and be happy. This was my original approach. However I am totally unclear about the 512b vs 4Kb issue.

Hi ZFS Discuss, I have a 8x 1TB RAIDZ running on Samsung 1TB 5400rpm drives with 512b sectors. I will be replacing all of these with 8x Western Digital 2TB drives with support for 4K sectors. The replacement plan will be to swap out each of the 8 drives until all are replaced and the new size (~16TB) is available with a `zfs scrub`. My question is, how do I do this and also factor in the new

I sent a zvol from host a, to host b, twice. Host b has two pools, one ashift=9, one ashift=12. I sent the zvol to each of the pools on b. The original source pool is ashift=9, and an old revision (2009_06 because it''s still running xen). I sent it twice, because something strange happened on the first send, to the ashift=12 pool. "zfs list -o space" showed figures at

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

.. evidently doesn''t work. GRUB reboots the machine moments after loading stage2, and doesn''t recognise the fstype when examining the disk loaded from an alernate source. This is with SX-151. Here''s hoping a future version (with grub2?) resolves this, as well as lets us boot from raidz. Just a note for the archives in case it helps someone else get back the afternoon

> > Offlist/OT - Sheer guess, straight out of my parts - maybe a cronjob to > rebuild the locate db or something similar is hammering it once a week? In the problem condition, there appears to be very little going on on the system. eg., root at server5:/tmp# /usr/local/bin/top last pid: 3828; load avg: 4.29, 3.95, 3.84; up 6+23:11:4407:12:47 79 processes: 78 sleeping, 1 on

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

Hello, Daniel, Apparently your data is represented by rather small files (thus many small data blocks), so proportion of metadata is relatively high, and your<4k blocks are now using at least 4k disk space. For data with small blocks (a 4k volume on an ashift=12 pool) I saw metadata use up most of my drive - becoming equal to data size. Just for the sake of completeness, I brought up a

One of our Solaris 10 update 3 servers paniced today with the following error: Sep 18 00:34:53 m2000ef savecore: [ID 570001 auth.error] reboot after panic: assertion failed: ss != NULL, file: ../../common/fs/zfs/space_map.c, line: 125 The server saved a core file, and the resulting backtrace is listed below: $ mdb unix.0 vmcore.0 > $c vpanic() 0xfffffffffb9b49f3() space_map_remove+0x239()

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

Hello all, I have an oi_148a PC with a single root disk, and since recently it fails to boot - hangs after the copyright message whenever I use any of my GRUB menu options. Booting with an oi_148a LiveUSB I had around since installation, I ran some zdb traversals over the rpool and zpool import attempts. The imports fail by running the kernel out of RAM (as recently discussed in the list with

So, what is the story about 4KB disk sectors? Should such disks be avoided with ZFS? Or, no problem? Or, need to modify some config file before usage? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hi, I am using FreeBSD 8.2 and went to add 4 new disks today to expand my offsite storage. All was working fine for about 20min and then the new drive cage started to fail. Silly me for assuming new hardware would be fine :( The new drive cage started to fail, it hung the server and the box rebooted. After it rebooted, the entire pool is gone and in the state below. I had only written a few