similar to: Large scale ZFS deployments out there (>200 disks)

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

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

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

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

I have a Dell R710 which has been flaky for some time. It crashes about once per week. I have literally replaced every piece of hardware in it, and reinstalled Sol 10u9 fresh and clean. I am wondering if other people out there are using Dell hardware, with what degree of success, and in what configuration? The failure seems to be related to the perc 6i. For some period around the time

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

we have DELL server (CENTOS 4.X) with MD1000 connect on it. One of Raid5 (internal 4 disks) has hard disk bad and I replace it. I saw /var/log/messages have following entry: ======================================= Aug 18 15:33:20 host1 Server Administrator: Storage Service EventID: 2049 Array disk removed: Array Disk 0:11 Controller 1, Connector 0 Aug 18 15:34:09 host1 Server Administrator:

Zpool split is a wonderful feature and it seems to work well, and the choice of which disk got which name was perfect! But there seems to be an odd anomaly (at least with b132) . Started with c0t1d0s0 running b132 (root pool is called rpool) Attached c0t0d0s0 and waited for it to resilver Rebooted from c0t0d0s0 zpool split rpool spool Rebooted from c0t0d0s0, both rpool and spool were mounted

Hi, one quick&dirty way of backing up a pool that is a mirror of two devices is to zpool attach a third one, wait for the resilvering to finish, then zpool detach it again. The third device then can be used as a poor man''s simple backup. Has anybody tried it yet with a striped mirror? What if the pool is composed out of two mirrors? Can I attach devices to both mirrors, let them

Hi there! I am new to the list, and to OpenSolaris, as well as ZPS. I am creating a zpool/zfs to use on my NAS server, and basically I want some redundancy for my files/media. What I am looking to do, is get a bunch of 2TB drives, and mount them mirrored, and in a zpool so that I don''t have to worry about running out of room. (I know, pretty typical I guess). My problem is, is that

The default blocksize is 128K. If you are using mirrors, then each block on disk will be 128K whenever possible. But if you''re using raidzN with a capacity of M disks (M disks useful capacity + N disks redundancy) then the block size on each individual disk will be 128K / M. Right? This is one of the reasons the raidzN resilver code is inefficient. Since you end up waiting for the

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 past weekend, but holiday was ruined due to a log device "replacement" gone awry. I posted all about it here: http://jmlittle.blogspot.com/2008/05/problem-with-slogs-how-i-lost.html In a nutshell, an resilver of a single log device with itself, due to the fact one can''t remove a log device from a pool once defined, cause ZFS to fully resilver but then attach the log

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

So, when you add a log device to a pool, it initiates a resilver. What is it actually doing, though? Isn''t the slog a copy of the in-memory intent log? Wouldn''t it just simply replicate the data that''s in the other log, checked against what''s in RAM? And presumably there isn''t that much data in the slog so there isn''t that much to check? Or

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

Is there any way to control the resliver speed? Having attached a third disk to a mirror (so I can replace the other disks with larger ones) the resilver goes at a fraction of the speed of the same operation using disk suite. However it still renders the system pretty much unusable for anything else. So I would like to control the rate of the resilver. Either slow it down a lot so that the

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

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