similar to: How to interrupt a zpool scrub?

Hello All I read this thread Resilver/scrub times? for a few minutes and I have recognize that I dont know the different between Resilvering and Scrubing. Shame on me. :-( I dont find some declarations in the man-pages and I know the command to start scrubing "zpool scrub tank" but what is the command to start resilver and what is the different? -- Best Regards Alexander Dezember, 20

I know this topic has been discussed many times... but what the hell makes zpool resilvering so slow? I''m running OpenSolaris 2009.06. I have had a large number of problematic disks due to a bad production batch, leading me to resilver quite a few times, progressively replacing each disk as it dies (and now preemptively removing disks.) My complaint is that resilvering ends up

After several days of trying to get a 1.5TB drive to resilver and it continually restarting, I eliminated all of the snapshot-taking facilities which were enabled and 2009-10-29.14:58:41 [internal pool scrub done txg:567780] complete=0 2009-10-29.14:58:41 [internal pool scrub txg:567780] func=1 mintxg=3 maxtxg=567354 2009-10-29.16:52:53 [internal pool scrub done txg:567999] complete=0

Hi all! I''ve decided to take the "big jump" and build a ZFS home filer (although it might also do "other work" like caching DNS, mail, usenet, bittorent and so forth). YAY! I wonder if anyone can shed some light on how long a pool scrub would take on a fairly decent rig. These are the specs as-ordered: Asus P5Q-EM mainboard Core2 Quad 2.83 GHZ 8GB DDR2/80 OS: 2 x

Hi there, I am currently evaluating OpenSolaris as a replacement for my linux installations. I installed it as a xen domU, so there is a remote chance, that my observations are caused by xen. First, my understanding of "zpool [i]scrub[/i]" is "Ok, go ahead, and rewrite [b]each block of each device[/b] of the zpool". Whereas "[i]resilvering[/i]" means "Make

Hi list, Here''s my case : pool: mypool 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: resilver in progress for 147h19m, 100.00% done, 0h0m to go config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM filerbackup13

for s10u2, documentation recommends 3 to 9 devices in raidz. what is the basis for this recommendation? i assume it is performance and not failure resilience, but i am just guessing... [i know, recommendation was intended for people who know their raid cold, so it needed no further explanation] thanks... oz -- ozan s. yigit | oz at somanetworks.com | 416 977 1414 x 1540 I have a hard time

Say I''m firing off an at(1) or cron(1) job to do scrubs, and say I want to scrub two pools sequentially because they share one device. The first pool, BTW, is a mirror comprising of a smaller disk and a subset of a larger disk. The other pool is the remainder of the larger disk. I see no documentation mentioning how to scrub, then wait-until-completed. I''m happy to be pointed

I have a weekly scrub setup, and I''ve seen at least once now where it says "don''t snapshot while scrubbing" Is this a data integrity issue, or will it make one or both of the processes take longer? Thanks

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

In a discussion a few weeks back, it was mentioned that the Best Practices Guide says something like "Don''t put more than ___ disks into a single vdev." At first, I challenged this idea, because I see no reason why a 21-disk raidz3 would be bad. It seems like a good thing. I was operating on assumption that resilver time was limited by sustainable throughput of disks, which

Tonight I''ve been moving some of my personal data around on my desktop system and have hit some on-disk corruption. As you may know, I''m cursed, and so this had a high probability of ending badly. I have two SCSI disks and use live upgrade, and I have a partition, /aux0, where I tend to keep personal stuff. This is on an SB2500 running snv_46. The upshot is that I have a slice

Hi all, I recently experienced a disk failure on my home server and observed checksum errors while resilvering the pool and on the first scrub after the resilver had completed. Now everything seems fine but I''m posting this to get help with calming my nerves and detect any possible future faults. Lets start with some specs. OSOL 2009.06 Intel SASUC8i (w LSI 1.30IT FW) Gigabyte

Hello, I''m working with someone who replaced a failed 1TB drive (50% utilized), on an X4540 running OS build 134, and I think something must be wrong. Last Tuesday afternoon, zpool status reported: scrub: resilver in progress for 306h0m, 63.87% done, 173h7m to go and a week being 168 hours, that put completion at sometime tomorrow night. However, he just reported zpool status shows:

This must be resliver day :) I just had a drive failure. The hot spare kicked in, and access to the pool over NFS was effectively zero for about 45 minutes. Currently the pool is still reslivering, but for some reason I can access the file system now. Resliver speed has been beaten to death I know, but is there a way to avoid this? For example, is more enterprisy hardware less susceptible to

Today I attempted to upgrade to S10_U2 and migrate some mirrored UFS SVM partitions to ZFS. I used Live Upgrade to migrate from U1 to U2 and that went without a hitch on my SunBlade 2000. And the initial conversion of one side of the UFS mirrors to a ZFS pool and subsequent data migration went fine. However, when I attempted to attach the second side mirrors as a mirror of the ZFS pool, all

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

So, my Areca controller has been complaining via email of read errors for a couple days on SATA channel 8. The disk finally gave up last night at 17:40. I got to say I really appreciate the Areca controller taking such good care of me. For some reason, I wasn''t able to log into the server last night or in the morning, probably because my home dir was on the zpool with the failed disk

Hi all I''m seeing some rather bad resilver times for a pool of WD Green drives (I know, bad drives, but leave that). Does resilver go through the whole pool or just the VDEV in question? -- Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy at karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres

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