similar to: zfs raidz questions

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''m having following issue .. i import the zpool and it shows pool imported correctly but after few seconds when i issue command zpool list .. it does not show any pool and when again i try to import it says device is missing in pool .. what could be the reason for this .. and yes this all started after i upgraded the powerpath abcxxxx # zpool import pool: emcpool1 id:

Good morning everybody I was migrating my ufs ? rootfilesystem to a zfs ? one, but was a little upset finding out that it became bigger (what was clear because of the swap and dump size). Now I am questioning myself if it is possible to set the swap and dump size by using the lucreate ? command (I wanna try it again but on less space). Unfortunately I did not find any advice in manpages.

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. 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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

So I have attached to my system two 7-disk SCSI arrays, each of 18.2 GB disks. Each of them is a RAID-Z1 zpool. I had a disk I thought was a dud, so I pulled the fifth disk in my array and put the dud in. Sure enough, Solaris started spitting errors like there was no tomorrow in dmesg, and wouldn''t use the disk. Ah well. Remove it, put the original back in - hey, Solaris still thinks

New server build with Solaris-10 u5/08, on a SunFire t5220, and this is our first rollout of ZFS and Zpools. Have 8 disks, boot disk is hardware mirrored (c1t0d0 + c1t1d0) Created Zpool my_pool as RaidZ using 5 disks + 1 spare: c1t2d0, c1t3d0, c1t4d0, c1t5d0, c1t6d0, and spare c1t7d0 I am working on alerting & recovery plans for disks failures in the zpool. As a test, I have pulled disk

While testing a zpool with a different storage adapter using my "blkdev" device, I did a test which made a disk unavailable -- all attempts to read from it report EIO. I expected my configuration (which is a 3 disk test, with 2 disks in a RAIDZ and a hot spare) to work where the hot spare would automatically be activated. But I''m finding that ZFS does not behave this way

Hi Is it possible to convert live 3 disks zpool from raidz to raidz2 And is it possible to add 1 new disk to raidz configuration without backups and recreating zpool from cratch. Thanks This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hi all, I have a 5 drive RAIDZ volume with data that I''d like to recover. The long story runs roughly: 1) The volume was running fine under FreeBSD on motherboard SATA controllers. 2) Two drives were moved to a HP P411 SAS/SATA controller 3) I *think* the HP controllers wrote some volume information to the end of each disk (hence no more ZFS labels 2,3) 4) In its "auto

fun example that shows NCQ lowers wait and %w, but doesn''t have much impact on final speed. [scrubbing, devs reordered for clarity] extended device statistics device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd2 454.7 0.0 47168.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 12.6 0 74 sd4 440.7 0.0 45825.9 0.0 0.0 5.5 12.4 0 78 sd6 445.7 0.0

Hello everyone, As one of the steps of improving my ZFS home fileserver (snv_134) I wanted to replace a 1TB disk with a newer one of the same vendor/model/size because this new one has 64MB cache vs. 16MB in the previous one. The removed disk will be use for backups, so I thought it''s better off to have a 64MB cache disk in the on-line pool than in the backup set sitting off-line all

Ciao, the rot filesystem of my thumper is a ZFS with a single disk: bash-3.2# zpool status rpool pool: rpool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c0t7d0 AVAIL c1t6d0 AVAIL c1t7d0

Hi, Is it possible to convert a zfs pool from a concatenation of 2 disks to a 2 way mirror without backing up the data, re-creating the pool and restoring it. i.e diskA,diskB ----> mirror(diskA,diskB) Thanks, Jeff