similar to: zfs showing more filesystem using ls than df actually has

Hi, Created a zpool with 64k recordsize and enabled dedupe on it. zpool create -O recordsize=64k TestPool device1 zfs set dedup=on TestPool I copied files onto this pool over nfs from a windows client. Here is the output of zpool list Prompt:~# zpool list NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT TestPool 696G 19.1G 677G 2% 1.13x ONLINE - When I ran a

Hi Steven, Read/Write errors are recorded when an active path of the geom_multipath device is pulled while running the i/o on dataset created for the pool. Running I/o on dataset using dd. *Freebsd version :* 9.0 *Patch imported from stable 9 : *r229303, r234916 *zpool status:* * * pool: poola state: ONLINE scan: none requested config:

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

While testing a zpool with a different storage adapter using my "blkdev" device, I did a test which made a disk unavailable -- all attempts to read from it report EIO. I expected my configuration (which is a 3 disk test, with 2 disks in a RAIDZ and a hot spare) to work where the hot spare would automatically be activated. But I''m finding that ZFS does not behave this way

I have a test server setup with Samba 4.1.4. All file interactions test work except when copying files from a CD or DVD to the samba share on Windows 7. I have a CD with a folder that contains 324 files and 22 sub-folders. Consistently if I drag/drop or copy/paste the folder in Windows Explorer directly from the CD to the samba share only 53 files and 4 folders get copied. No error dialogs

http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=1657 Summary: tests/functional/acl/nontrivial/zfs_acl_cp_001_pos causes panic Classification: Development Product: zfs-crypto Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: Solaris Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P2

Hi, One of my colleagues was confused by the output of ''zpool status'' on a pool where a hot spare is being resilvered in after a drive failure: $ zpool status data pool: data state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will continue to function, possibly in a degraded state. action: Wait for the resilver to complete. scrub:

OK, I know that there''s been some discussion on this before, but I''m not sure that any specific advice came out of it. What would the advice be for supporting a largish number of users (10,000 say) on a system that supports ZFS? We currently use vxfs and assign a user quota, and backups are done via Legato Networker. >From what little I currently understand, the general

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

G''day, all, So, I''ve decided to migrate my home server from Linux+swRAID+LVM to Solaris+ZFS, because it seems to hold much better promise for data integrity, which is my primary concern. However, naturally, I decided to do some benchmarks in the process, and I don''t understand why the results are what they are. I though I had a reasonable understanding of ZFS, but now

Trying to test virt-v2v using ESX. Running Fedora 16 and virt-v2v 0.8.5. Command invocation: virt-v2v -ic esx://testhostname/?no_verify=1 -os testpool --network default testvm Result: Invalid configuration of Net::HTTPS at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Sys/VirtConvert/Transfer/ESX.pm line 68. Couldn't find a resolution to this issue on the net. Please assist.

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

First - many, many congrats to team ZFS. Developing/writing a new Unix fs is a very non-trivial exercise with zero tolerance for developer bugs. I just loaded build 27a on a w1100z with a single AMD 150 CPU (2Gb RAM) and a single (for now) SCSI disk drive: FUJITSU MAP3367NP (Revision: 0108) hooked up to the built-in SCSI controller (the only device on the SCSI bus). My initial ZFS test was to

fun example that shows NCQ lowers wait and %w, but doesn''t have much impact on final speed. [scrubbing, devs reordered for clarity] extended device statistics device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd2 454.7 0.0 47168.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 12.6 0 74 sd4 440.7 0.0 45825.9 0.0 0.0 5.5 12.4 0 78 sd6 445.7 0.0

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

I''m seeing a performance anomaly where opening a large file (but doing *no* I/O to it) seems to cause (or correlates to) a significant performance hit on a mirrored ZFS filesystem. Unintuitively, if I disable zfs_prefetch_disable, I don''t see the performance degradation. It doesn''t make sense that this would help unless there is some cache/VM pollution resulting

Hi experts zpool import shows some weird config of an old zpool bash-3.00# zpool import pool: data1 id: 7539031628606861598 state: FAULTED status: One or more devices are missing from the system. action: The pool cannot be imported. Attach the missing devices and try again. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-3C config: data1 UNAVAIL insufficient replicas

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 just pushed vdiskadm import/export/convert to the 3.3 vdisk and vbox repos. You can now import a disk image from a block device or file to a vdisk, convert (in place) to a different type of vdisk and export from a vdisk to a block device or file. I''ve also pushed the full vhd support (sparse and fixed) and the ability to import a vmdk 1.1 optimized stream file. An

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