similar to: mismatched replication level question

Is it possible to build a raidz with different disk sizes? If so, are you limited to the size of the smallest disk (*ndisks)? -frank This message posted from opensolaris.org

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

I am planning on building an opensolaris server to replace my NAS. My case has room for 20 hotswap sata drives and 1 or 2 internal drives. I was planning on going with 5 raidz vdevs each with 4 drives, and maybe a hot spare inside the case in one of the extra slots. I am going to use 2 Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 cards (pci-x 133 each with 8 sata ports) The motherboard is going to be either

Folks, >From zfs documentation, it appears that a "vdev" can be built from more vdevs. That is, a raidz vdev can be built across a bunch of mirrored vdevs, and a mirror can be built across a few raidz vdevs. Is my understanding correct? Also, is there a limit on the depth of a vdev? Thank you in advance for your help. Regards, Peter -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

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

Hello... Since there has been much discussion about zpool import failures resulting in loss of an entire pool, I thought I would illustrate a scenario I just went through to recover a faulted pool that wouldn''t import under Solaris 10 U5. While this is a simple scenario, and the data was not terribly important, I think the exercise should at least give some piece of mind to those who

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:

Hello All, I have a zpool that consists of 2 raidz vdevs (raidz1-0 and raidz1-1). The first vdev is 4 1.5TB drives. The second was 4 500GB drives. I replaced the 4 500GB drives with 4 3TB drives. I replaced one at time, and resilvered each. Now the process is complete, I expected to have an extra 10TB (4*2.5TB) of raw space, but it''s still the same amount of space. I did an export and

Hi zfsers Just wanted to ping the list since one of the osunix/grub devs has been working hard at porting zfs to grub2. I don''t think he''s subscribed to zfs-discuss so quoting his original email and cc''ing him. Drop by #osunix on freenode if you''re interested in the raidz/compressed rpool support

I''m reading the "ZFS On-disk Format" PDF (dated 2006 - are there newer releases?), and have some questions regarding whether it is outdated: 1) On page 16 it has the following phrase (which I think is in general invalid): The value stored in offset is the offset in terms of sectors (512 byte blocks). To find the physical block byte offset from the beginning of a slice,

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

Say I have a raidz of 3 disks: ad4 ad6 ad8 I want to tell zfs that I am pulling ad4 and replacing it with a new disk on the same controller, but I can''t get it to release its hold on ad4. [0138][root at ztest:/home/matt]# zpool offline pond ad4 Bringing device ad4 offline [0140][root at ztest:/home/matt]# zpool replace pond ad4 cannot replace ad4 with ad4: ad4 is busy

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

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,

Hi, I had a plan to set up a zfs pool with different raid levels but I ran into an issue based on some testing I''ve done in a VM. I have 3x 750 GB hard drives and 2x 320 GB hard drives available, and I want to set up a RAIDZ for the 750 GB and mirror for the 320 GB and add it all to the same pool. I tested detaching a drive and it seems to seriously mess up the entire pool and I

I didn''t find any clear answer in the documentation, so here it goes: I''ve got a 4-device RAIDZ array in a pool. I then add another RAIDZ array to the pool. If one of the arrays fails, would all the data on the array be lost, or would it be like disc spanning, and only the data on the failed array be lost? Thanks in advance. This message posted from opensolaris.org

After having to reset my i-ram card, I can no longer import my raidz pool on 2008.05. Also trying to import the pool using the zpool.cache causes a kernel panic on 2008.05 and B89 (I''m waiting to try B90 when released). So I have 2 options: * Wait for a release that can import after log failure... (no time frame ATM) * Use a util that removes the log vdev info from the remaining vdevs.

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

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

Hi guys, after reading the mailings yesterday i noticed someone was after upgrading to zfs v21 (deduplication) i''m after the same, i installed osol-dev-127 earlier which comes with v19 and then followed the instructions on http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/en/index.shtml to bring my system up to date, however, the system is reporting no updates are available and stays at zfs v19, any ideas?