similar to: Zfs ignoring spares?

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 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

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 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

In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks failed last night so I shut down the server and replaced it with a spare. When I tried to zpool replace the disk I get: zpool replace tank c10t0d0 cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small The 4 original disk partition tables look like

Hi, folks, testing zfs. I'd created a zpoolz2, ran a large backup onto it. Then I pulled one drive (11-drive, one hot spare pool), and it resilvered with the hot spare. zpool status -x shows me state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be used because the label is missing or invalid. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state.

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

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

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

hi all I have a server running svn_131 and the scrub is very slow. I have a cron job for starting it every week and now it''s been running for a while, and it''s very, very slow scrub: scrub in progress for 40h41m, 12.56% done, 283h14m to go The configuration is listed below, consisting of three raidz2 groups with seven 2TB drives each. The root fs is on a pair of X25M (gen 1)

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

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

Hi. I installed solaris express developer edition (b79) on a supermicro quad-core harpertown E5405 with 8 GB ram and two internal sata-drives. I installed solaris onto one of the internal drives. I added an areca arc-1680 sas-controller and configured it in jbod-mode. I attached an external sas-cabinet with 16 sas-drives 1 TB (931 binary GB). I created a raidz2-pool with ten disks and one spare.

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'm trying to destroy a zfs array which I recently created. It contains nothing of value. # zpool status pool: storage state: ONLINE status: One or more devices could not be used because the label is missing or invalid. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Replace the device using 'zpool replace'.

Hi, I had a hot spare used to replace a failed drive, but then the drive appears to be fine anyway. After clearing the error it shows that the drive was resilvered, but keeps the spare in use. zpool status pool2 pool: pool2 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM pool2 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2

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

Hi all :) I''ve been wanting to make the switch from XFS over RAID5 to ZFS/RAIDZ2 for some time now, ever since I read about ZFS the first time. Absolutely amazing beast! I''ve built my own little hobby server at home and have a boatload of disks in different sizes that I''ve been using together to build a RAID5 array on Linux using mdadm in two layers; first layer 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

We discussed using the top bits of the chunk type field field to store a number of redundant disks -- so instead of RAID5, RAID6, etc., we end up with a single ''RAID56'' flag, and the amount of redundancy is stored elsewhere. This attempts it, but I hate it and don''t really want to do it. The type field is designed as a bitmask, and _used_ as a bitmask in a number of