similar to: resilver of older root pool disk

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

Hello, I recently installed SunOS 5.11 snv_91 onto a Ultra 60 UPA/PCI with OpenBoot 3.31 and two 300GB SCSI disks. The root file system is UFS on c0t0d0s0. Following the steps in ZFS Admin I have attempted to convert root to ZFS utilizing c0t1d0s0. However, upon "init 6" I am always presented with: Bad magic number in disk label can''t open disk label package My Steps: 1)

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

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

hello, all I am have constraint disk space (only 8GB) while running os inside vm. Now i want to add more. It is easy to add for vm but how can i update fs in os? I cannot use autoexpand because it doesn''t implemented in my system: $ uname -a SunOS sopen 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc If it was 171 it would be grate, right? Doing following: o added new virtual HDD (it becomes

A) Resilver = Defrag. True/false? B) If I buy larger drives and resilver, does defrag happen? C) Does zfs send zfs receive mean it will defrag? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

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

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 understand that currently, at least under Solaris 10u6, it is not possible to jumpstart a new system with a zfs root using a flash archive as a source. Can anyone comment as to whether this restriction will pass in the near term, or if this is a while out (6+ months) before this will be possible? Thanks, Jerry

Here is what I have configured: T2000 with OBP 4.28.6 2008/05/23 12:07 with 2 - 72 GB disks as the root disks OpenSolaris Nevada Build 91 Solaris Express Community Edition snv_91 SPARC Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 03 June 2008

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

I''m trying to replicate a 300 GB pool with this command zfs send alpha at 3 | zfs receive -F omega about 2 hours in to the process it fails with this error "cannot receive new filesystem stream: invalid backup stream" I have tried setting the target read only (zfs set readonly=on omega) also disable Timeslider thinking it might have something to do with it. What could be

We are looking into the possibility of adding a dedicated ZIL and/or L2ARC devices to our pool. We are looking into getting 4 ? 32GB Intel X25-E SSD drives. Would this be a good solution to slow write speeds? We are currently sharing out different slices of the pool to windows servers using comstar and fibrechannel. We are currently getting around 300MB/sec performance with 70-100% disk busy.

Hi Folks.. I have a system that was inadvertently left unmirrored for root. We were able to add a mirror disk, resilver, and fix the corrupted files (nothing very interesting was corrupt, whew), but zpool status -v still shows errors.. Will this self correct when we replace the degraded disk and resilver? Or is there something else that I''m not finding that I need to do to clean up?

I''m planning on setting up an NFS server for our ESXi hosts and plan on using a virtualized Solaris or Nexenta host to serve ZFS over NFS. The storage I have available is provided by Equallogic boxes over 10Gbe iSCSI. I am trying to figure out the best way to provide both performance and resiliency given the Equallogic provides the redundancy. Since I am hoping to provide a 2TB

Hi, all, I think I''m missing a concept with import and export. I''m working on installing a Nexenta b134 system under Xen, and I have to run the installer under hvm mode, then I''m trying to get it back up under pv mode. In that process the controller names change, and that''s where I''m getting tripped up. I do a successful install, then I boot OK,

Hello, I am curious to know if there is an easy way to guess or identify the device names of disks. Previously the /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0 system made sense to me... I had a SATA controller card with 8 ports, and they showed up with the numbers 1-8 in the "t" position of the device name. But I just built a new system with two LSI SAS HBAs in it, and my device names are along the lines of:

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

With the release of the Nevada build 90 binaries, it is now possible to install SXCE directly onto a ZFS root filesystem, and also put ZFS swap onto a ZFS filesystem without worrying about having it deadlock. ZFS now also supports crash dumps! To install SXCE to a ZFS root, simply use the text-based installer, after choosing "Solaris Express" from the boot menu on the DVD. DVD download

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>