similar to: RAID10

Hi. If I create a zpool with the following command: zpool create tank raidz2 da0 da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6 da7 and after a reboot the device names for some reason are changed so da2 and da5 are swapped, either by altering the LUN setting on the storage or by switching cables/swapping disks etc.? How will zfs handle that? Will it simply acknowledge that all devices are present and the pool is

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. I''m all set for doing performance comparsion between Solaris/ZFS and FreeBSD/ZFS. I spend last few weeks on FreeBSD/ZFS optimizations and I think I''m ready. The machine is 1xQuad-core DELL PowerEdge 1950, 2GB RAM, 15 x 74GB-FC-10K accesses via 2x2Gbit FC links. Unfortunately the links to disks are the bottleneck, so I''m going to use not more than 4 disks, probably.

Which consumer-priced 1.5TB drives do people currently recommend? I had zero read/write/checksum errors so far in 2 years with my trusty old Western Digital WD7500AAKS drives, but now I want to upgrade to a new set of drives that are big, reliable and cheap. As of Jan 2010 it seems the price sweet spot is the 1.5TB drives. As I had a lot of success with Western Digital drives I thought I would

I currently am getting good speeds out of my existing system (8x 2TB in a RAIDZ2 exported over fibre channel) but there''s no such thing as too much speed, and these other two drive bays are just begging for drives in them.... If I go to 10x 2TB in a RAIDZ3, will the extra spindles increase speed, or will the extra parity writes reduce speed, or will the two factors offset and leave things

I seem to have managed to end up with a pool that is confused abut its children disks. The pool is faulted with corrupt metadata: pool: d state: FAULTED status: The pool metadata is corrupted and the pool cannot be opened. action: Destroy and re-create the pool from a backup source. see: http://illumos.org/msg/ZFS-8000-72 scan: none requested config: NAME STATE

Hi guys, I am about to reshape my data spool and am wondering what performance diff. I can expect from the new config. Vs. The old. The old config. Is a pool of a single vdev of 8 disks raidz2. The new pool config is 2vdev''s of 7 disk raidz2 in a single pool. I understand it should be better with higher io throughput....and better read/write rates...but interested to hear the science

Hello all. I have a supermicro 16 bay box with a LSI 9211-8i card. We use it for temp data storage, and we wanted to try the l4z compression. After updating the source tree to r247839: and doing a make buildworld cycle all works fine. But at boot time we get some warnings. make_dev_physpath_alias: WARNING - Unable to alias gptid/281951f4-a996-11e1-83eb-00259061b51a to enc at

Replacing my current media server with another larger capacity media server. Also switching over to solaris/zfs. Anyhow we have 24 drive capacity. These are for large sequential access (large media files) used by no more than 3 or 5 users at a time. I''m inquiring as to what the best configuration for this is for vdevs. I''m considering the following configurations 4 x x6

I have zpool like that pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz3-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t4d0 ONLINE

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

Hi, I''m referring to; http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6977913 It should be in Solaris 11 Express, has anyone tried this? How this is supposed to work? Any documentation available? Yours Markus Kovero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

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:

Hi all I have a test system with snv134 and 8x2TB drives in RAIDz2 and currently no Zil or L2ARC. I noticed the I/O speed to NFS shares on the testpool drops to something hardly usable while scrubbing the pool. How can I address this? Will adding Zil or L2ARC help? Is it possible to tune down scrub''s priority somehow? Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy at

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, i''m new to the list so please bare with me. This isn''t an OpenSolaris related problem but i hope it''s still the right list to post to. I''m on the way to move a backup server to using zfs based storage, but i don''t want to spend too much drives to parity (the 16 drives are attached to a 3ware raid controller so i could also just use raid6 there). I

I''m playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my 6x 300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my data at home (video, photos, music, etc). I''m debating between: 6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool --or-- 2x (3x 300GB disks in a pool) mirrored I''ve read up a lot on ZFS, but I can''t really figure out which is

Well, I''ve searched my brains out and I can''t seem to find a reason for this. I''m getting bad to medium performance with my new test storage device. I''ve got 24 1.5T disks with 2 SSDs configured as a zil log device. I''m using the Areca raid controller, the driver being arcmsr. Quad core AMD with 16 gig of RAM OpenSolaris upgraded to snv_134. The zpool

I?ve spend a few hours reading through the forums and wiki and honestly my head is spinning. I have been trying to study up on either buying or building a box that would allow me to add drives of varying sizes/speeds/brands (adding more later etc) and still be able to use the full space of drives (minus parity? [not sure if I got the terminology right]) with redundancy. I have found the ?all in

I have been searching this forum and just about every ZFS document i can find trying to find the answer to my questions. But i believe the answer i am looking for is not going to be documented and is probably best learned from experience. This is my first time playing around with open solaris and ZFS. I am in the midst of replacing my home based filed server. This server hosts all of my media