similar to: RAID-Z1 pool became faulted when a disk was removed.

Hello All, I have an issue where I have two SATA cards with 5 drives each in one zfs pool. The issue is one of the devices has been intermittently failing. The problem is that the entire box seems to lock up on occasion when this happens. I currently have the SATA cable to that device disconnected in the hopes that the box will at least stay up for now. This is a new build that I am

how does one free segment(offset=77984887808 size=66560) on a pool that won''t import? looks like I found http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6580715 http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-September/042541.html when I luupgrade a ufs partition with a dvd-b62 that was bfu to b68 with a dvd of b74 it booted fine and I was doing the same thing that I had done on

Under Solaris 10 u6 , No matter how I configured my ARECA 1261ML Raid card I got errors on all drives that result from SCSI timeout errors. yoda:~ # tail -f /var/adm/messages Jan 9 11:03:47 yoda.asc.edu scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Requested Block: 239683776 Error Block: 239683776 Jan 9 11:03:47 yoda.asc.edu scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Vendor: Seagate

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 a little zpool with a naughty raidz vdev that won''t take a replacement that as far as i can tell should be adequate. a history: this could well be some bizarro edge case, as the pool doesn''t have the cleanest lineage. initial creation happened on NexentaCP inside vmware in linux. i had given the virtual machine raw device access to 4 500gb drives and 1 ~200gb

I''m seeing odd behaviour when I create a ZFS raidz pool using three disks. The output of "zpool status" shows the pool size as the size of the three disks combined (as if it were a Raid 0 volume). This isn''t expected behaviour is it? When I create a mirrored volume in ZFS everything is as one would expect the pool is the size of a single drive. My setup: Compaq

Hello, I have a Dell 2950 with a Perc 5/i, two 300GB 15K SAS drives in a RAID0 array. I am considering going to ZFS and I would like to get some feedback about which situation would yield the highest performance: using the Perc 5/i to provide a hardware RAID0 that is presented as a single volume to OpenSolaris, or using the drives separately and creating the RAID0 with OpenSolaris and ZFS? Or

Hi there, i''m building a small NAS with 5x1TB Disks. The disks contains at the moment some data, ntfs as the fs and aren''t a raid. Now my im wondering if its possible to add the parity later. So that i add step by step one disk to the pool. And when i add the last disk, i enable the parity. (i have only one another 1 tb disk to backup the files) Thank you for you replies and

Hi. I''d like to request a feature be added to zfs. Currently, on SAN attached disk, zpool shows up with a big WWN for the disk. If ZFS (or the zpool command, in particular) had a text field for arbitrary information, it would be possible to add something that would indicate what LUN on what array the disk in question might be. This would make troubleshooting and general

Hi All, I had a slice with zfs file system which I want to mirror, I followed the procedure mentioned in the amin guide I am getting this error. Can you tell me what I did wrong? root # zpool list NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT export 254G 230K 254G 0% ONLINE - root # echo |format Searching for disks...done

I physically removed a disk (c3t8d0 used by ZFS ''pool01'') from a 3310 JBOD connected to a V210 running s10u3 (11/06) and ''zpool status'' reported this: # zpool status pool: pool01 state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the

I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days, and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I''m not afraid of ext4''s newness, since really a lot of that stuff has been in Lustre for years. So a-benchmarking I went. Results at the bottom:

I executed sync just before this happened.... ultra:ultra# mdb -k unix.0 vmcore.0 Loading modules: [ unix krtld genunix specfs dtrace ufs sd pcipsy md ip sctp usba fctl nca crypto zfs random nfs ptm cpc fcip sppp lofs ] > $c vpanic(7b653bd8, 7036fca0, 7036fc70, 7b652990, 0, 60002d0b480) zio_done+0x284(60002d0b480, 0, a8, 7036fca0, 0, 60000b08d80) zio_vdev_io_assess+0x178(60002d0b480, 8000,

Hello all, I''m building a file server (or just a storage that I intend to access by Workgroup from primarily Windows machines) using zfs raidz2 and openindiana 148. I will be using this to stream blu-ray movies and other media, so I will be happy if I get just 20MB/s reads, which seems like a pretty low standard considering some people are getting 100+. This is my first time with OI, and

Had an idea, could someone please tell me why it''s wrong? (I feel like it has to be). A RaidZ-2 pool with one missing disk offers the same failure resilience as a healthy RaidZ1 pool (no data loss when one disk fails). I had initially wanted to do single parity raidz pool (5disk), but after a recent scare decided raidz2 was the way to go. With the help of a sparse file

I believe ZFS is causing a panic whenever I attempt to mount an iso image (SXCR build 39) that happens to reside on a ZFS file system. The problem is 100% reproducible. I''m quite new to OpenSolaris, so I may be incorrect in saying it''s ZFS'' fault. Also, let me know if you need any additional information or debug output to help diagnose things. Config: [b]bash-3.00#

Dear Dany; First of all, thanks for sharing us the knowledge as really I got tired from it. I am using Fedora, actually I did not get to know how could the fedora cause the problem at memory level and hard disk level? Also, how can I resolve it? Regards Bilal -------------------- > Dave, > ? ???In theory this is quite > correct;? In real practice, Linux uses disk for > lots of

Hi list, I use xen-unstable download by hg on 8.24, i create a guest os "freedos", it just display a black screen. Then i destroy the guest os by "xm destroy",I closed. And then message jump out: =========================================== localhost kernel:unregister_netdevice:waiting for tun0 to became free. Usage count=1 Message from syslogd@localhost at Fri Aug 26

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15374 Summary: Selecting team in pinch-hitter became much harder Product: swfdec Version: git Platform: x86-64 (AMD64) URL: http://www.break.com/games/pinch-hitter.html OS/Version: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium

Hi, after cvs upgrading my * installation yesterday, the prompts in both VoiceMail2 and VoiceMailMain2 have become silent. All I get is the initial "blip" followed by the Voice taking breath and being cut off before she has a chance to say "Comedian Mail". All other prompts (ie the Playback application) seem to work fine. I can still login to VoiceMailMain2, however, each