similar to: remove disk (again)

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

The vendor wanted to come in and replace an HDD in the 2nd X4500, as it was "constantly busy", and since our x4500 has always died miserably in the past when a HDD dies, they wanted to replace it before the HDD actually died. The usual was done, HDD replaced, resilvering started and ran for about 50 minutes. Then the system hung, same as always, all ZFS related commands would just

To all, I am using dovecot --version 1.0.10 and trying to convert MBOXes to MailDir's with the end goal of creating one folder filled with users old MBOXes that when they log in for the first time will be converted to Mail Dir format. I tried this and it did not work and gave me this output; <snip> default_mail_env = maildir:%h/mail/ #convert_mail =

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

We are currently experiencing a very huge perfomance drop on our zfs storage server. We have 2 pools, pool 1 stor is a raidz out of 7 iscsi nodes, home is a local mirror pool. Recently we had some issues with one of the storagenodes, because of that the pool was degraded. Since we did not succeed in bringing this storagenode back online (on zfs level) we upgraded our nashead from opensolaris b57

Hello all, This is not so much a question but rather a "how-to" for posterity. Comments and possible fixes are welcome, though. I''m toying (for work) with a Solaris 10 VM, and it has a dedicated virtual HDD for data and zones. The template VM had a 20Gb disk, but a particular application needs more. I hoped ZFS autoexpand would do the trick transparently, but it turned out

This seems like a bit of a restriction ... is this intended ? # cat /etc/release Solaris Express Community Edition snv_125 SPARC Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 05 October 2009 # uname -a SunOS neptune 5.11 snv_125 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-880 #

I''ve recently upgraded my x4500 to Nevada build 97, and am having problems with the iscsi target. Background: this box is used to serve NFS underlying a VMware ESX environment (zfs filesystem-type datasets) and presents iSCSI targets (zfs zvol datasets) for a Windows host and to act as zoneroots for Solaris 10 hosts. For optimal random-read performance, I''ve configured a single

Hi, I had a plan to set up a zfs pool with different raid levels but I ran into an issue based on some testing I''ve done in a VM. I have 3x 750 GB hard drives and 2x 320 GB hard drives available, and I want to set up a RAIDZ for the 750 GB and mirror for the 320 GB and add it all to the same pool. I tested detaching a drive and it seems to seriously mess up the entire pool and I

We have a SunFire X4500 running Solaris 10U5 which does about 5-8k nfs ops of which about 90% are meta data. In hind sight it would have been significantly better to use a mirrored configuration but we opted for 4 x (9+2) raidz2 at the time. We can not take the downtime necessary to change the zpool configuration. We need to improve the meta data performance with little to no money. Does anyone

IHAC Who has an x4500(x86 box) who has a zfs root filesystem. They installed patches today, the latest solaris 10 x86 recommended patch cluster and the patching seemed to complete successfully. Then when they tried to reboot the box the machine would not boot? They get the following error NOTICE: spa_import_rootpool: error 5, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot mount root on /pci at

Listers: Am trying to compile Samba 3.0.2a on Solaris (9 - SPARC). After a bit of fiddling, we were encouraged, having finally gotten the configuration to work smoothly. (This was itself a major coup; glad to share config and results with anyone trying the same thing...) However, the 'make' command goes nuts, filling the filesystem (with almost 900 MB!) before dying with a 'no

Hi guys, we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS (i.e. NFS server). Both server will contain the same files and should be accessed by different clients at the same time (i.e. they should be both active) So we need to guarantee that both x4500 contain the same files: We could simply copy the contents on both x4500 , which is an option because the "new

If it''s of interest, I''ve written up some articles on my experiences of building a ZFS NAS box which you can read here: http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/a-home-fileserver-using-zfs/ I used CIFS to share the filesystems, but it will be a simple matter to use NFS instead: issue the command ''zfs set sharenfs=on pool/filesystem'' instead of ''zfs set

Hi, just found on a X4500 with S10u6: fmd: [ID 441519 daemon.error] SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-GH, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major EVENT-TIME: Wed Feb 11 16:03:26 CET 2009 PLATFORM: Sun Fire X4500, CSN: 00:14:4F:20:E0:2C , HOSTNAME: peng SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0 EVENT-ID: 74e6f0ec-b1e7-e49b-8d71-dc1c9b68ad2b DESC: The number of checksum errors associated with a ZFS device exceeded

This was previously posed to the sun-managers mailing list but the only reply I received recommended I post here at well. We have a production Solaris 10u5 / ZFS X4500 file server which is reporting NLM_DENIED_NOLOCKS immediately for any nfs locking request. The lockd does not appear to be busy so is it possible we have hit some sort of limit on the number of files that can be locked? Are there

After applying 125205-07 on two X4500 machines running Sol10U4 and removing "set sata:sata_func_enable = 0x5" from /etc/system to re-enable NCQ, I am again observing drive disconnect error messages. This in spite of the patch description which claims multiple fixes in this area: 6587133 repeated DMA command timeouts and device resets on x4500 6538627 x4500 message logs contain multiple

Hi all. We currenty move out a number of iSCSI servers based on Thumpers (x4500) running both, Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris build 90+. The targets on the machines are based on ZVOLs. Some of the clients use those iSCSI "disks" to build mirrored Zpools. As the volumes size on the x4500 can easily be grown I would like to know if that growth in space can be propagated to the client

Hello all, As some of you might remember, there is a Sun Fire X4500 (Thumper) server that I was asked to help upgrade to modern disks. It is still in a testing phase, and the one UltraStar 3Tb currently available to the server''s owners is humming in the server, with one small partition on its tail which replaced a dead 250Gb disk earlier in to pool. The OS is still SXCE snv_117 so

Hi ZFS gods, I have a x4500 I wish to upgrade from a SVM UFS Sol 10u5 to a ZFS rpool 10u6 or Opensolaris. Since I know (via backing up my sharetab) what shares I need to have (all nfs share - no cifs on this 4500 - YAY) and have organised downtime for this server, would it be easier for me to go to Solaris 10u6 (or opensolaris) by just installing from scratch and re-importing the ZPOOL