similar to: Troubleshooting ZFS performance with SIL3124 cards

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

Currently I''m trying to figure out the best zfs layout for a thumper wrt. to read AND write performance. I did some simple mkfile 512G tests and found out, that per average ~ 500 MB/s seems to be the maximum on can reach (tried initial default setup, all 46 HDDs as R0, etc.). According to http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/ArchitectureWP_062806.pdf I would

Howdy, I have at several times had issues with consumer grade PC hardware and ZFS not getting along. The problem is not the disks but the fact I dont have ECC and end to end checking on the datapath. What is happening is that random memory errors and bit flips are written out to disk and when read back again ZFS reports it as a checksum failure: pool: myth state: ONLINE status: One or more

Hi all, I recently created a RAID-Z1 pool out of a set of 7 SCSI disks, using the following command: # zpool create magicant raidz c5t0d0 c5t1d0 c5t2d0 c5t3d0 c5t4d0 c5t5d0 c5t6d0 It worked fine, but I was slightly confused by the size yield (99 GB vs the 116 GB I had on my other RAID-Z1 pool of same-sized disks). I thought one of the disks might have been to blame, so I tried swapping it out

Hello experts, I''ve had a lingering question for some time: when I use "zpool iostat -v" the values do not quite sum up. In the example below with a raidz2 array made of 6 drives: * the reported 33K of writes are less than two disks'' workload at this time (at 17.9K each), overall disks writes are 107.4K = 325% of 33K. * write ops sum up to 18 = 225% of 8 ops to

Hello, I had snv_111b running for a while on a HP DL160G5. With two 16GB USB sticks comprising the mirrored rpool for boot. And four 1TB drives comprising another pool, pool1, for data. So that''s been working just fine for a few months. Yesterday I get it into my mind to upgrade the OS to latest, then was snv_127. That worked, and all was well. Also did an upgrade to the

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

(From the README) # Jeb Campbell <jebc at c4solutions.net> NOTE: This is last resort if you need your data now. This worked for me, and I hope it works for you. If you have any reservations, please wait for Sun to release something official, and don''t blame me if your data is gone. PS -- This worked for me b/c I didn''t try and replace the log on a running system. My

Greetings all. I am facing serious problems running ZFS on a storage server assembled out of commodity hardware that is supposed to be Solaris compatible. Although I am quite familiar with Linux distros and other unices, I am new to Solaris so any suggestions are highly appreciated. First I tried SXDE 1/08 creating the following pool: -bash-3.2# zpool status -v tank pool: tank state:

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 All, I posted this in a different threat, but it was recommended that I post in this one. Basically, I have a 3 drive raidz array on internal Seagate drives. running build 64nv. I purchased 3 add''l USB drives with the intention of mirroring and then migrating the data to the new USB drives. I accidentally added the 3 USB drives in a raidz to my original storage pool, so now I have 2

Hi, I''m running Opensolaris 2009.06, and I''m facing a serious performance loss with ZFS ! It''s a raidz1 pool, made of 4 x 1TB SATA disks : zfs_raid ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0

I''d like to replace/upgrade two 500GB disks in RaidZ2 vdev with 1TB disks, but I have some preliminary questions/concerns before trying ''zfs replace dpool ?'' Will ZFS permit this replacement? Will ZFS use the extra space in a heterogeneous RaidZ2 vdev, or is the size limited by the smallest disk in the vdev? Thanks in advance, Vizzini The system is currently running

Suppose the requirements for storage shrink ( it can happen ) is it possible to remove a mirror set from a zpool? Given this : # zpool status array03 pool: array03 state: ONLINE status: The pool is formatted using an older on-disk format. The pool can still be used, but some features are unavailable. action: Upgrade the pool using ''zpool upgrade''. Once this is