similar to: Difference between "add" and "attach" a device?

Hi list, My zfs write performance is poor and need your help. I create zpool with 2 raidz1. When the space is to be used up, I add 2 another raidz1 to extend the zpool. After some days, the zpool is almost full, I remove some old data. But now, as show below, the first 2 raidz1 vdev usage is about 78% and the last 2 raidz1 vdev usage is about 93%. I have line in /etc/system set

I currently have a 7x1.5tb raidz1. I want to add "phase 2" which is another 7x1.5tb raidz1 Can I add the second phase to the first phase and basically have two raid5''s striped (in raid terms?) Yes, I probably should upgrade the zpool format too. Currently running snv_104. Also should upgrade to 110. If that is possible, would anyone happen to have the simple command lines to

I have a strange problem with a faulted zpool (two way mirror): [root at einstein;0]~# zpool status poolm pool: poolm state: FAULTED scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM poolm UNAVAIL 0 0 0 insufficient replicas mirror UNAVAIL 0 0 0 corrupted data c2t0d0s0 ONLINE 0

Replacing my current media server with another larger capacity media server. Also switching over to solaris/zfs. Anyhow we have 24 drive capacity. These are for large sequential access (large media files) used by no more than 3 or 5 users at a time. I''m inquiring as to what the best configuration for this is for vdevs. I''m considering the following configurations 4 x x6

I have read through the mail archives to find a solution to my problem... to no avail. Here is the issue: I have a Samba 2.2.2 acting as a PDC, with Win2k I can join the domain and logon as a domain user. No problem. (So it is working and set up properly). With WinXP - Pro, I can join the domain, successfully. However, once I do the reboot I cannot logon as a domain user as I did with

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

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

I suspect it''s probably not a good idea but I was wondering if someone could clarify the details. I have 4 250G SATA(150) disks and 1 250G PATA(133) disk. Would it cause problems if I created a raidz1 pool across all 5 drives? I know the PATA drive is slower so would it slow the access across the whole pool or just when accessing that disk? Thanks for your input. - Chris

@triso because some of the engines, notably the two strongest, are not offered as native linux programs. i've updated my ubuntu 64-bit wine install script to use wine 1.3.13 http://www.jesseo.com/chess/64-bit-wine-ubuntu-1.3.13.sh i've gotten many engines to run from the terminal with this command "/home/USERNAME/wine64/wine" cmd.exe /K DeepRybka4x64.exe

I?ve spend a few hours reading through the forums and wiki and honestly my head is spinning. I have been trying to study up on either buying or building a box that would allow me to add drives of varying sizes/speeds/brands (adding more later etc) and still be able to use the full space of drives (minus parity? [not sure if I got the terminology right]) with redundancy. I have found the ?all in

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

Hello everyone, I''m wondering if the following makes sense: To configure a system for high IOPS, I want to have a zpool of 15K RPM SAS drives. For high IOPS, I believe it is best to let ZFS stripe them, instead of doing a raidz1 across them. Therefore, I would like to mirror the drives for reliability. Now, I''m wondering if I can get away with using a large capacity 7200

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.

[Apologies in advance for the train of thought prose, but it is brainstorming after all…] I'm going to focus on self-descriptive names rather than literary or fantasy references… Advanced Compiler Kit, affectionately known as “ACK!”? It has an ill- deserved nod to NeXT, even. (Completely the wrong language, after all.) Core Compiler? Heh, I don't think that'd get past certain

Hi! While reading through PROTOCOL.krl I came across "5. KRL signature sections". If my understanding is correct - and that's basically what I would like to get knocked down for if appropriate ;) - this is a way for SSHDs to ensure they only accept KRLs signed by a trusted CA. However, I cannot seem to find a way to actually _sign_ a KRL with ssh-keygen? The aforementioned

Hi all I have a test system with snv134 and 8x2TB drives in RAIDz2 and currently no Zil or L2ARC. I noticed the I/O speed to NFS shares on the testpool drops to something hardly usable while scrubbing the pool. How can I address this? Will adding Zil or L2ARC help? Is it possible to tune down scrub''s priority somehow? Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy at

The time has come to expand my OpenSolaris NAS. Right now I have 6 1TB Samsung Spinpoints in a Raidz2 configuration. I also have a mirrored root pool. The Raidz2 configuration should be for my most critical data - but right now it is holding everything so I need to add some more pools and move some data around. To start I need a vdev I will call "temp" that acts as a networked bit

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

Hi, for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical disk''s ipos. Regards Victor -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Here is a description of what I am trying to do (with Samba 3.0.2a & openldap 2.1.27): I have all my users populated into the LDAP with all the applicable attributes; Users can map drives to a server using LDAP as the authentication backend without issue. Where I am running into problems is bringing up a PDC using Samba w/LDAP. * I added