hello folks, I am running Solaris 10 U3 and I have small problem that I dont
know how to fix...
I had a pool of two drives:
bash-3.00# zpool status
pool: mypool
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
mypool ONLINE 0 0 0
emcpower0a ONLINE 0 0 0
emcpower1a ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
I added another drive
so now I have pool of 3 drives
bash-3.00# zpool status
pool: mypool
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
mypool ONLINE 0 0 0
emcpower0a ONLINE 0 0 0
emcpower1a ONLINE 0 0 0
emcpower2a ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
everything is great but I''ve made a mistake and I would like to remove
emcpower2a from my pool and I cannot do that...
Well the mistake that I made is that I did not format my device correctly so
instead of adding 125gig I added 128meg
here is my partition on that disk:
partition> print
Current partition table (original):
Total disk cylinders available: 63998 + 2 (reserved cylinders)
Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks
0 root wm 0 - 63 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144
1 swap wu 64 - 127 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144
2 backup wu 0 - 63997 125.00GB (63998/0/0) 262135808
3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
6 usr wm 128 - 63997 124.75GB (63870/0/0) 261611520
7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
partition>
what I would like to do is to remove my emcpower2a device, format it and then
add 125gig one instead of the 128meg. Is it possible to do this in Solaris 10
U3? If not what are my options?
Regards,
Chris
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Krzys wrote:> > everything is great but I''ve made a mistake and I would like to remove > emcpower2a from my pool and I cannot do that... > > Well the mistake that I made is that I did not format my device > correctly so instead of adding 125gig I added 128megYou can''t remove it directly, but you certainly can *replace* it with a larger drive. If this is critical data, then obviously back up first, and test these steps on alternate storage.> > Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks > 0 root wm 0 - 63 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 > 1 swap wu 64 - 127 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 > 2 backup wu 0 - 63997 125.00GB (63998/0/0) 262135808 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 6 usr wm 128 - 63997 124.75GB (63870/0/0) 261611520 > 7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0The easiest thing would be to replace s0 with s6. You''ll be 128mb shy of the full disk, but that''s a drop in the bucket. The command would be: zpool replace mypool emcpower2a emcpowerXX where XX is the name of slice 6. You should see the new size right away. Another option would be to use a different drive, formatted to give you the entire disk, and then do a replace of emcpower2a with emcpower3a. Then you could repartition 2 properly, and repalce 3 with 2. Regards, markm
yes, I was thinking about this but I wanted to just remove the whole 128mb disk and then use format to repartition this complete disk to give it full capacity... I have all the disks setup this way so I wanted to be consistent with it but its not letting remove that disk at all from the pool...128mb is not much to waste and I am not concern about it but as I said I wanted to be consistent and thats the reason why I wanted to remove the other disk... Maybe what I can do is replace it with a different device if I can find it and then replace that disk with it and then partition it to my need and then replace the temporary disk with this new repartitioned disk... I thought there might be easier way to do it... Thanks for help. Chris On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Mark J Musante wrote:> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Krzys wrote: >> >> everything is great but I''ve made a mistake and I would like to remove >> emcpower2a from my pool and I cannot do that... >> >> Well the mistake that I made is that I did not format my device >> correctly so instead of adding 125gig I added 128meg > > You can''t remove it directly, but you certainly can *replace* it with a > larger drive. If this is critical data, then obviously back up first, and > test these steps on alternate storage. > >> >> Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks >> 0 root wm 0 - 63 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 >> 1 swap wu 64 - 127 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 >> 2 backup wu 0 - 63997 125.00GB (63998/0/0) 262135808 >> 3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >> 4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >> 5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >> 6 usr wm 128 - 63997 124.75GB (63870/0/0) 261611520 >> 7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > > The easiest thing would be to replace s0 with s6. > > You''ll be 128mb shy of the full disk, but that''s a drop in the bucket. > The command would be: > zpool replace mypool emcpower2a emcpowerXX > where XX is the name of slice 6. You should see the new size right away. > > Another option would be to use a different drive, formatted to give you > the entire disk, and then do a replace of emcpower2a with emcpower3a. > Then you could repartition 2 properly, and repalce 3 with 2. > > > Regards, > markm > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > > !DSPAM:122,472733c5131049287932! >
Chris, I agree that your best bet is to replace the 128-mb device with another device, fix the emcpower2a manually, and then replace it back. I don''t know these drives at all, so I''m unclear about the fix it manually step. Because your pool isn''t redundant, you can''t use zpool offline or detach. I''m curious if the capacity of this pool is 128mb x 3? If so, then I think you could replace the emcpower2a with a 128mb file. Then, replace it back. Like this: 0. Backup your data. 1. Create the file. # mkdir /files # mkfile 128m /files/file1 2. Replace the device with the file: # zpool replace mypool emcpower2a /files/file1 3. fix the emcpower2a drive 4. Replace the file with the device # zpool replace mypool /files/file1 emcpower2a I have no experience with these drives, but in theory, this should work. I''m also wondering if you should make the 128mb file slightly larger to account for any differences in sizing of a UFS file and the emcpower drive. Cindy Krzys wrote:>yes, I was thinking about this but I wanted to just remove the whole 128mb disk >and then use format to repartition this complete disk to give it full >capacity... I have all the disks setup this way so I wanted to be consistent >with it but its not letting remove that disk at all from the pool...128mb is not >much to waste and I am not concern about it but as I said I wanted to be >consistent and thats the reason why I wanted to remove the other disk... > >Maybe what I can do is replace it with a different device if I can find it and >then replace that disk with it and then partition it to my need and then replace >the temporary disk with this new repartitioned disk... I thought there might be >easier way to do it... > >Thanks for help. > >Chris > > >On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Mark J Musante wrote: > > > >>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Krzys wrote: >> >> >>>everything is great but I''ve made a mistake and I would like to remove >>>emcpower2a from my pool and I cannot do that... >>> >>>Well the mistake that I made is that I did not format my device >>>correctly so instead of adding 125gig I added 128meg >>> >>> >>You can''t remove it directly, but you certainly can *replace* it with a >>larger drive. If this is critical data, then obviously back up first, and >>test these steps on alternate storage. >> >> >> >>>Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks >>> 0 root wm 0 - 63 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 >>> 1 swap wu 64 - 127 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 >>> 2 backup wu 0 - 63997 125.00GB (63998/0/0) 262135808 >>> 3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >>> 4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >>> 5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >>> 6 usr wm 128 - 63997 124.75GB (63870/0/0) 261611520 >>> 7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >>> >>> >>The easiest thing would be to replace s0 with s6. >> >>You''ll be 128mb shy of the full disk, but that''s a drop in the bucket. >>The command would be: >> zpool replace mypool emcpower2a emcpowerXX >>where XX is the name of slice 6. You should see the new size right away. >> >>Another option would be to use a different drive, formatted to give you >>the entire disk, and then do a replace of emcpower2a with emcpower3a. >>Then you could repartition 2 properly, and repalce 3 with 2. >> >> >>Regards, >>markm >>_______________________________________________ >>zfs-discuss mailing list >>zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >>http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >> >> >>!DSPAM:122,472733c5131049287932! >> >> >> >_______________________________________________ >zfs-discuss mailing list >zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > >
Cindy Swearingen wrote:> Chris, > > I agree that your best bet is to replace the 128-mb device with > another device, fix the emcpower2a manually, and then replace it > back. I don''t know these drives at all, so I''m unclear about the > fix it manually step. > > Because your pool isn''t redundant, you can''t use zpool offline > or detach. > > I''m curious if the capacity of this pool is 128mb x 3? If so, > then I think you could replace the emcpower2a with a 128mb file.It should be 125G+125G+128M. I think this is a good idea, just create this file somewhere outside of your pool. Hth, Victor> Then, replace it back. Like this: > > 0. Backup your data. > > 1. Create the file. > # mkdir /files > # mkfile 128m /files/file1 > > 2. Replace the device with the file: > > # zpool replace mypool emcpower2a /files/file1 > > 3. fix the emcpower2a drive > > 4. Replace the file with the device > > # zpool replace mypool /files/file1 emcpower2a > > I have no experience with these drives, but in theory, this should work. > I''m also wondering if you should make the 128mb file slightly larger to > account for any differences in sizing of a UFS file and the emcpower > drive. > > Cindy > > Krzys wrote: > >> yes, I was thinking about this but I wanted to just remove the whole 128mb disk >> and then use format to repartition this complete disk to give it full >> capacity... I have all the disks setup this way so I wanted to be consistent >> with it but its not letting remove that disk at all from the pool...128mb is not >> much to waste and I am not concern about it but as I said I wanted to be >> consistent and thats the reason why I wanted to remove the other disk... >> >> Maybe what I can do is replace it with a different device if I can find it and >> then replace that disk with it and then partition it to my need and then replace >> the temporary disk with this new repartitioned disk... I thought there might be >> easier way to do it... >> >> Thanks for help. >> >> Chris >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Mark J Musante wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Krzys wrote: >>> >>> >>>> everything is great but I''ve made a mistake and I would like to remove >>>> emcpower2a from my pool and I cannot do that... >>>> >>>> Well the mistake that I made is that I did not format my device >>>> correctly so instead of adding 125gig I added 128meg >>>> >>>> >>> You can''t remove it directly, but you certainly can *replace* it with a >>> larger drive. If this is critical data, then obviously back up first, and >>> test these steps on alternate storage. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks >>>> 0 root wm 0 - 63 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 >>>> 1 swap wu 64 - 127 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 >>>> 2 backup wu 0 - 63997 125.00GB (63998/0/0) 262135808 >>>> 3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >>>> 4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >>>> 5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >>>> 6 usr wm 128 - 63997 124.75GB (63870/0/0) 261611520 >>>> 7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 >>>> >>>> >>> The easiest thing would be to replace s0 with s6. >>> >>> You''ll be 128mb shy of the full disk, but that''s a drop in the bucket. >>> The command would be: >>> zpool replace mypool emcpower2a emcpowerXX >>> where XX is the name of slice 6. You should see the new size right away. >>> >>> Another option would be to use a different drive, formatted to give you >>> the entire disk, and then do a replace of emcpower2a with emcpower3a. >>> Then you could repartition 2 properly, and repalce 3 with 2. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> markm >>> _______________________________________________ >>> zfs-discuss mailing list >>> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >>> >>> >>> !DSPAM:122,472733c5131049287932! >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Cindy Swearingen wrote:> I''m curious if the capacity of this pool is 128mb x 3? If so, then I > think you could replace the emcpower2a with a 128mb file.That''s a great idea. You could do it even if the other two aren''t 128mb - you can always replace a device/file as long as the new dev/file is >= the original. Just make sure your file *isn''t* in the zpool. Some local storage would do nicely. Regards, markm
Krzys wrote:> hello folks, I am running Solaris 10 U3 and I have small problem that I dont > know how to fix... > > I had a pool of two drives: > > bash-3.00# zpool status > pool: mypool > state: ONLINE > scrub: none requested > config: > > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > mypool ONLINE 0 0 0 > emcpower0a ONLINE 0 0 0 > emcpower1a ONLINE 0 0 0 > > errors: No known data errors > > I added another drive > > so now I have pool of 3 drives > > bash-3.00# zpool status > pool: mypool > state: ONLINE > scrub: none requested > config: > > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > mypool ONLINE 0 0 0 > emcpower0a ONLINE 0 0 0 > emcpower1a ONLINE 0 0 0 > emcpower2a ONLINE 0 0 0 > > errors: No known data errors > > everything is great but I''ve made a mistake and I would like to remove > emcpower2a from my pool and I cannot do that... > > Well the mistake that I made is that I did not format my device correctly so > instead of adding 125gig I added 128meg > > here is my partition on that disk: > partition> print > Current partition table (original): > Total disk cylinders available: 63998 + 2 (reserved cylinders) > > Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks > 0 root wm 0 - 63 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 > 1 swap wu 64 - 127 128.00MB (64/0/0) 262144 > 2 backup wu 0 - 63997 125.00GB (63998/0/0) 262135808 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 6 usr wm 128 - 63997 124.75GB (63870/0/0) 261611520 > 7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > > partition> > > what I would like to do is to remove my emcpower2a device, format it and then > add 125gig one instead of the 128meg. Is it possible to do this in Solaris 10 > U3? If not what are my options? > > Regards, > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discussOne other (risker) option would be to export the pool and grow slice 0 in emcpower2a so that it consumes the entire disk. Then reimport the pool and we should detect the new size and grow the pool accordingly. You want to make sure you don''t change the starting cylinder so that we can still see the front half of the labels. I''ve been able to successfully do this with EFI labels but have not tried this with VTOCs. If you do decide to go this route, a full backup is highly recommended. - George
I have a zpool issue that I need to discuss. My application is going to run on a 3120 with 4 disks. Two(mirrored) disks will represent /export/home and the other two(mirrored) will be /export/backup. The question is, should I create one zpool or two to hold /export/home and /export/backup? Currently I have one pool for /export/home and one pool for /export/backup. Should it be on pool for both??? Would this be better and why? Thanks for any help and advice. Brian.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Brian Lionberger wrote:> The question is, should I create one zpool or two to hold /export/home > and /export/backup? > Currently I have one pool for /export/home and one pool for /export/backup. > > Should it be on pool for both??? Would this be better and why?One thing to consider is that pools are the granularity of ''export'' operations, so if you ever want to, for example, move the /export/backup disks to a new computer, but keep /export/home on the current computer, you couldn''t do that easily if you create a pair of striped 2-way mirrors. Regards, markm
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 21:18 -0700, Brian Lionberger wrote:> I have a zpool issue that I need to discuss. > > My application is going to run on a 3120 with 4 disks. Two(mirrored) > disks will represent /export/home and the other two(mirrored) will be > /export/backup. > > The question is, should I create one zpool or two to hold /export/home > and /export/backup? > Currently I have one pool for /export/home and one pool for /export/backup. > > Should it be on pool for both??? Would this be better and why?Depends on what you want to do. Is there a reason to separate them? Benefit of zfs is you pool all the storage and allocate as you need. You can use quota''s to limit and reservation to guarantee space. If you need space later, you would only need to add two more disks to one pool go provide space to both current file systems vs. having to add 4 disks to two different pools. Also depending on what you need, you could use the 4 disks in a RAIDZ to provide additional space with redundancy, etc. Again, this would depend on what your current needs are. Without a description of your application, and other requirements (cluster/failover, etc), could be either or.> > Thanks for any help and advice. > > Brian. > > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss-- Mike Dotson