similar to: ZFS Raidz2 problem, detached drive

Hello zfs-discuss, One of a disk started to behave strangely. Apr 11 16:07:42 thumper-9.srv sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /pci at 1,0/pci1022,7458 at 3/pci11ab,11ab at 1: Apr 11 16:07:42 thumper-9.srv port 6: device reset Apr 11 16:07:42 thumper-9.srv scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /pci at 1,0/pci1022,7458 at 3/pci11ab,11ab at 1/disk at 6,0 (sd27): Apr 11 16:07:42 thumper-9.srv

Hello all, I''m building a file server (or just a storage that I intend to access by Workgroup from primarily Windows machines) using zfs raidz2 and openindiana 148. I will be using this to stream blu-ray movies and other media, so I will be happy if I get just 20MB/s reads, which seems like a pretty low standard considering some people are getting 100+. This is my first time with OI, and

I recently had a hard drive die on my 6 drive raidz2 array (4+2). Unfortunately, now that the dead drive didn''t register anymore, Linux decided to rearrange all of the drive names around such that zfs couldn''t figure out what drives went where. After much hair pulling, I gave up on Linux and went to OpenSolaris, but it wouldn''t recognize my SATA controller, so

Already making use of it, thank you! http://www.justinconover.com/blog/?p=17 I took 6x250gb disk and tried raidz2/raidz/none # zpool create zfs raidz2 c0d0 c1d0 c2d0 c3d0 c7d0 c8d0 df -h zfs Filesystem size used avail capacity Mounted on zfs 915G 49K 915G 1% /zfs # zpool destroy -f zfs Plain old raidz (raid-5ish) # zpool create zfs raidz c0d0

I''d like to replace/upgrade two 500GB disks in RaidZ2 vdev with 1TB disks, but I have some preliminary questions/concerns before trying ''zfs replace dpool ?'' Will ZFS permit this replacement? Will ZFS use the extra space in a heterogeneous RaidZ2 vdev, or is the size limited by the smallest disk in the vdev? Thanks in advance, Vizzini The system is currently running

Hello, 1) If i create a raidz2 pool on some disks, start to use it, then the disks'' controllers change. What will happen to my zpool? Will it be lost or is there some disk tagging which allows zfs to recognise the disks? 2) if i create a raidz2 on 3 HDs, do i have any resilience? If any one of those drives fails, do i loose everything? I''ve got one such pool and

I have a customer who has implemented the following layout: As you can see, he has mostly raidz zvols but has one raidz2 in the same zpool. What are the implications here? Is this a bad thing to do? Please elaborate. Thanks, Scott Gaspard Scott.J.Gaspard at Sun.COM > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > > chipool1 ONLINE 0 0 0 > >

I''ve got a zpool that has 4 raidz2 vdevs each with 4 disks (750GB), plus 4 spares. At one point 2 disks failed (in different vdevs). The message in /var/adm/messages for the disks were ''device busy too long''. Then SMF printed this message: Nov 23 04:23:51 x.x.com EVENT-TIME: Fri Nov 23 04:23:51 EST 2007 Nov 23 04:23:51 x.x.com PLATFORM: Sun Fire X4200 M2, CSN:

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

Will it be possible to update an existing raidz to a raidz2? I wouldn''t think so, but maybe I''ll be pleasantly surprised. -frank

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 am in the middle of converting a FreeBSD 8.0-Release system to OpenSolaris b130 In order to import my stuff, the only way i knew to make it work (from testing in virtualbox) was to do this: label a bunch of drives with an EFI label by using the opensolaris live cd, then use those drives in FreeBSD to create a zpool. This worked fine. (though i did get a warning in freebsd about GPT

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

We have a SunFire X4500 running Solaris 10U5 which does about 5-8k nfs ops of which about 90% are meta data. In hind sight it would have been significantly better to use a mirrored configuration but we opted for 4 x (9+2) raidz2 at the time. We can not take the downtime necessary to change the zpool configuration. We need to improve the meta data performance with little to no money. Does anyone

Author: vikram Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: 7cb2dd61ac3bb5d96888dbfeb5be96c2ab5b7ff0 Log message: 6264767 cfgadm expects to write into string constants Files: update: usr/src/cmd/cfgadm/Makefile update: usr/src/cmd/cfgadm/cfgadm.c update: usr/src/lib/cfgadm_plugins/usb/common/cfga_configfile.c

Folks, I''m trying to figure out whether we should give ZFS / mpxio a shot on one of our research servers, or simply skip it (as we have previously). In Nov 2009 Cindy responded to a thread concerning ZFS device issues, cfgadm, and mpxio: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-November/033496.html I''ve got an x2270 with the Sun EZ-SAS HBA and external SATA

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

Hi, I''m completely new to Solaris, but have managed to bumble through installing it to a single disk, creating an additional 3 disk RAIDZ array and then copying over data from a separate NTFS formatted disk onto the array using NTFS-3G. However, the single disk that was used for the OS installation has since died (it was very old) and I have had to reinstall 2008.11 from scratch onto a

We recently upgraded last week to OpenSolaris Development snv_128a and all things went fine, zpool still works, etc. Our disks come off a Hitachi Disk Array and we have 2 qLogic fiber cards in our server. "cfgadm -al" use to report the cards and "luxadm probe" use to return all the disks on the array. "luxadm probe" now returns "ERROR: No Fibre Channel Adapters

Let''s say you are paranoid and have built a pool with 40+ disks in a Thumper. Is there a way to set metadata copies=3 manually? After having built RAIDZ2 sets with 7-9 disks and then pooled these together, it just seems like a little bit of extra insurance to increase metadata copies. I don''t see a need for extra data copies which is currently the only trigger I see for that.