similar to: delete old zpool config?

Hi all, Sorry for the newbie question, but I''ve looked at the docs and haven''t been able to find an answer for this. I''m working with a system where the pool has already been configured and want to determine what the configuration is. I had thought that''d be with zpool status -v <poolname>, but it doesn''t seem to agree with the

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

Hello zfs-discuss, One of a disk started to behave strangely. Apr 11 16:07:42 thumper-9.srv sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /pci at 1,0/pci1022,7458 at 3/pci11ab,11ab at 1: Apr 11 16:07:42 thumper-9.srv port 6: device reset Apr 11 16:07:42 thumper-9.srv scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /pci at 1,0/pci1022,7458 at 3/pci11ab,11ab at 1/disk at 6,0 (sd27): Apr 11 16:07:42 thumper-9.srv

Hi! I have a problem with ZFS and most likely the SATA PCI-X controllers. I run opensolaris 2008.11 snv_98 and my hardware is Sun Netra x4200 M2 with 3 SIL3124 PCI-X with 4 eSATA ports each connected to 3 1U diskchassis which each hold 4 SATA disks manufactured by Seagate model ES.2 (500 and 750) for a total of 12 disks. Every disk has its own eSATA cable connected to the ports on the PCI-X

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 > >

I''ve got a Thumper running snv_57 and a large ZFS pool. I recently noticed a drive throwing some read errors, so I did the right thing and zfs replaced it with a spare. Everything went well, but the resilvering process seems to be taking an eternity: # zpool status pool: bigpool state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An attempt was

I am curious why zpool status reports a pool to be in the DEGRADED state after a drive in a raidz2 vdev has been successfully replaced. In this particular case drive c0t6d0 was failing so I ran, zpool offline home/c0t6d0 zpool replace home c0t6d0 c8t1d0 and after the resilvering finished the pool reports a degraded state. Hopefully this is incorrect. At this point is the vdev in question now has

Hi all, I recently created a RAID-Z1 pool out of a set of 7 SCSI disks, using the following command: # zpool create magicant raidz c5t0d0 c5t1d0 c5t2d0 c5t3d0 c5t4d0 c5t5d0 c5t6d0 It worked fine, but I was slightly confused by the size yield (99 GB vs the 116 GB I had on my other RAID-Z1 pool of same-sized disks). I thought one of the disks might have been to blame, so I tried swapping it out

Just look at this. I thought all the restarting resilver bugs were fixed, but it looks like something odd is still happening at the start: Status immediately after starting resilver: # zpool status pool: rc-pool state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected. action: Determine

Currently I''m trying to figure out the best zfs layout for a thumper wrt. to read AND write performance. I did some simple mkfile 512G tests and found out, that per average ~ 500 MB/s seems to be the maximum on can reach (tried initial default setup, all 46 HDDs as R0, etc.). According to http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/ArchitectureWP_062806.pdf I would

Suppose the requirements for storage shrink ( it can happen ) is it possible to remove a mirror set from a zpool? Given this : # zpool status array03 pool: array03 state: ONLINE status: The pool is formatted using an older on-disk format. The pool can still be used, but some features are unavailable. action: Upgrade the pool using ''zpool upgrade''. Once this is

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

Hello experts, I''ve had a lingering question for some time: when I use "zpool iostat -v" the values do not quite sum up. In the example below with a raidz2 array made of 6 drives: * the reported 33K of writes are less than two disks'' workload at this time (at 17.9K each), overall disks writes are 107.4K = 325% of 33K. * write ops sum up to 18 = 225% of 8 ops to

Hello, I had snv_111b running for a while on a HP DL160G5. With two 16GB USB sticks comprising the mirrored rpool for boot. And four 1TB drives comprising another pool, pool1, for data. So that''s been working just fine for a few months. Yesterday I get it into my mind to upgrade the OS to latest, then was snv_127. That worked, and all was well. Also did an upgrade to the

Hi, once I created a zpool of single vdevs not using mirroring of any kind. Now I wonder if it''s possible to add vdevs and mirror the currently existing ones. Thanks, budy -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hi, I''m running Opensolaris 2009.06, and I''m facing a serious performance loss with ZFS ! It''s a raidz1 pool, made of 4 x 1TB SATA disks : zfs_raid ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0

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, I deployed ZFS on our mailserver recently, hoping for eternal peace after running on UFS and moving files witch each TB added. It is mailserver - it''s mdirs are on ZFS pool: capacity operations bandwidth pool used avail read write read write ------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Running a zpool scrub on our production pool is showing a scrub rate of about 400K/s. (When this pool was first set up we saw rates in the MB/s range during a scrub). Both zpool iostat and an iostat -Xn show lots of idle disk times, no above average service times, no abnormally high busy percentages. Load on the box is .59. 8 x 3GHz, 32GB ram, 96 spindles arranged into raidz zdevs on OI 147.

somehow I have issue replacing my disk. [20:09:29] root at adas: /root > zpool status mypooladas pool: mypooladas state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the missing device and online it using ''zpool online''. see: