similar to: Adding to zpool: would failure of one device destroy all data?

I was wondering what the best method of moving a pool from FreeBSD 8.0 to OpenSolaris is. When i originally built my system, it was using hardware which wouldn''t work in opensolairs, but i''m about to do an upgrade so i should be able to use Opensolaris when i''m done. My current system uses a Highpoint RocketRaid 2340. It has 12 1TB hard drives an intel core2 quad

I have zpool like that pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz3-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t4d0 ONLINE

I skimmed the archives and found a thread from July earlier this year about RAIDZ expansion. Not adding more RAIDZ stripes to a pool, but adding more drives to the stripe itself. I''m wondering if an RFE has been submitted for this and if any progress has been made, or is expected? I find myself out of space on my current RAID5 setup and would love to flip over to a ZFS raidz2 solution

1. I have a 4x18GB drive setup as RAIDZ. Now when thinking about it in terms of RAID5 I would expect to get (4-1)x18 worth of drive space, but DF -h shows 4x18. Is this a bug or do I not understand? 2. Once again thinking in RAID5 terms if I have 4X18GB and 12X9GB drives and I want to make a RAIDZ of all of them I would expect the 18GB to be treated at 9GB so the RAIDZ would be 16X9GB. Is

I''ve got 12Gb or so of db+web in a zone on a ZFS filesystem on a mirrored zpool. Noticed during some performance testing today that its i/o bound but using hardly any CPU, so I thought turning on compression would be a quick win. I know I''ll have to copy files for existing data to be compressed, so I was going to make a new filesystem, enable compression and rysnc everything in,

Hi All, I am looking at ZFS and I get that they call it RAIDZ which is similar to RAID 5, but what about RAID 10? Isn''t a RAID 10 setup better for data protection? So if I have 8 x 1.5tb drives, wouldn''t I: - mirror drive 1 and 5 - mirror drive 2 and 6 - mirror drive 3 and 7 - mirror drive 4 and 8 Then stripe 1,2,3,4 Then stripe 5,6,7,8 How does one do this with ZFS?

I have two identical Supermicro boxes with 32GB ram. Hardware details at the end of the message. They were running OI 151.a.5 for months. The zpool configuration was one storage zpool with 3 vdevs of 8 disks in RAIDZ2. The OI installation is absolutely clean. Just next-next-next until done. All I do is configure the network after install. I don''t install or enable any other services.

I have seen conflicting examples on how to create zpools using full disks. The zpool(1M) page uses "c0t0d0" but OpenSolaris Bible and others show "c0t0d0p0". E.g.: zpool create tank raidz c0t0d0 c0t1d0 c0t2d0 c0t3d0 c0t4d0 c0t5d0 zpool create tank raidz c0t0d0p0 c0t1d0p0 c0t2d0p0 c0t3d0p0 c0t4d0p0 c0t5d0p0 I have not been able to find any discussion on whether (or when) to

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

I'm trying to destroy a zfs array which I recently created. It contains nothing of value. # zpool status pool: storage state: ONLINE status: One or more devices could not be used because the label is missing or invalid. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Replace the device using 'zpool replace'.

Hello, What is the access algorithm used within multi-component pools for a given pool, and does it change when one or more members of the pool become degraded ? examples: zpool create mtank mirror c1t0d0 c2t0d0 mirror c3t0d0 c4t0d0 mirror c5t0d0 c6t0d0 or; zpool create ztank raidz c1t0d0 c2t0d0 c3t0d0 raidz c4t0d0 c5t0d0 c6t0d0 As files are created on the filesystem within these pools,

Ok, previous threads have lead me to believe that I want to make raidz vdevs [0] either 3, 5 or 9 disks in size [1]. Let''s say I have 8 disks. Do I want to create a zfs pool with a 5-disk vdev and a 3-disk vdev? Are there performance issues with mixing differently sized raidz vdevs in a pool? If there *is* a performance hit to mix like that, would it be greater or lesser than building

Hi all :) I''ve been wanting to make the switch from XFS over RAID5 to ZFS/RAIDZ2 for some time now, ever since I read about ZFS the first time. Absolutely amazing beast! I''ve built my own little hobby server at home and have a boatload of disks in different sizes that I''ve been using together to build a RAID5 array on Linux using mdadm in two layers; first layer is

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 Is it possible to convert live 3 disks zpool from raidz to raidz2 And is it possible to add 1 new disk to raidz configuration without backups and recreating zpool from cratch. Thanks This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hello list, I posted this a few days ago on opensolaris-discuss@ list I am posting here, because there my be too much noise on other lists I have been without this zfs set for a week now. My main concern at this point,is it even possible to recover this zpool. How does the metadata work? what tool could is use to rebuild the corrupted parts or even find out what parts are corrupted. most but

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

I''m playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my 6x 300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my data at home (video, photos, music, etc). I''m debating between: 6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool --or-- 2x (3x 300GB disks in a pool) mirrored I''ve read up a lot on ZFS, but I can''t really figure out which is

Hi all Having managed ZFS for about two years, I want to post a wishlist. INCLUDED IN ZFS - Mirror existing single-drive filesystem, as in ''zfs attach'' - RAIDz-stuff - single and hopefully multiple-parity RAID configuration with block-level checksumming - Background scrub/fsck - Pool-like management with multiple RAIDs/mirrors (VDEVs) - Autogrow as in ZFS autoexpand NOT

I was recently evaluating much the same question but with out only a single pool and sizing my disks equally. I only need about 500GB of usable space and so I was considering the value of 4x 250GB SATA Drives versus 5x 160GB SATA drives. I had intended to use an AMS 5 disk in 3 5.25" bay hot-swap backplane. http://www.american-media.com/product/backplane/sata300/sata300.html I priced