similar to: never ending resilver

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

Hi all I have installed a new server with 77 2TB drives in 11 7-drive RAIDz2 VDEVs, all on WD Black drives. Now, it seems two of these drives were bad, one of them had a bunch of errors, the other was very slow. After zfs offlining these and then zfs replacing them with online spares, resilver ended and I thought it''d be ok. Appearently not. Albeit the resilver succeeds, the pool status

Hi all, I recently experienced a disk failure on my home server and observed checksum errors while resilvering the pool and on the first scrub after the resilver had completed. Now everything seems fine but I''m posting this to get help with calming my nerves and detect any possible future faults. Lets start with some specs. OSOL 2009.06 Intel SASUC8i (w LSI 1.30IT FW) Gigabyte

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

Is there any way to stop a resilver? We gotta stop this thing - at minimum, completion time is 300,000 hours, and maximum is in the millions. Raidz2 array, so it has the redundancy, we just need to get data off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100929/9dbb6cf5/attachment.html>

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

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:

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

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

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

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

The time has come to expand my OpenSolaris NAS. Right now I have 6 1TB Samsung Spinpoints in a Raidz2 configuration. I also have a mirrored root pool. The Raidz2 configuration should be for my most critical data - but right now it is holding everything so I need to add some more pools and move some data around. To start I need a vdev I will call "temp" that acts as a networked bit

After several days of trying to get a 1.5TB drive to resilver and it continually restarting, I eliminated all of the snapshot-taking facilities which were enabled and 2009-10-29.14:58:41 [internal pool scrub done txg:567780] complete=0 2009-10-29.14:58:41 [internal pool scrub txg:567780] func=1 mintxg=3 maxtxg=567354 2009-10-29.16:52:53 [internal pool scrub done txg:567999] complete=0

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

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

Hi all I have this server with some 50TB disk space. It originally had 30TB on WD Greens, was filled quite full, and another storage chassis was added. Now, space problem gone, fine, but what about speed? Three of the VDEVs are quite full, as indicated below. VDEV #3 (the one with the spare active) just spent some 72 hours resilvering a 2TB drive. Now, those green drives suck quite hard, but not

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?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 figure this group will know better than any other I have contact with, is 700-800 I/Ops reasonable for a 7200 RPM SATA drive (1 TB Sun badged Seagate ST31000N in a J4400) ? I have a resilver running and am seeing about 700-800 writes/sec. on the hot spare as it resilvers. There is no other I/O activity on this box, as this is a remote replication target for production data. I have a the

I''m building another 24-bay rackmount storage server, and I''m considering what drives to put in the bays. My chassis is a Supermicro SC846A, so the backplane supports SAS or SATA; my controllers are LSI3081E, again supporting SAS or SATA. Looking at drives, Seagate offers an enterprise (Constellation) 2TB 7200RPM drive in both SAS and SATA configurations; the SAS model offers