So, I currently have a pool with 12 disks raid-z2 (12+2). As you may have
seen in the other thread, I''ve been having on and off issues with b126
randomly dropping drives. Well, I think after changing several cables, and
doing about 20 reboots plugging one drive in at a time (I only booted to the
marvell bios, not the whole way into the OS), I''ve gotten the marvell
cards
to settle down. The problem is, I''m now seeing this in a zpool output:
pool: fserv
state: ONLINE
scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Tue Nov 10 09:15:12
2009
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
fserv ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz2-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c8t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c8t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c8t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c8t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c8t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c8t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c7t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c7t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c7t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
spare-11 ONLINE 0 0 5
c7t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 30K resilvered
c7t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
spares
c7t6d0 INUSE currently in use
Anyone have any thoughts? I''m trying to figure out how to get c7t6d0
back
to being a hotspare since c7t5d0 is installed, there, and happy. It''s
almost as if it''s using both disks for "spare-11" right now.
--Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20091110/3cbba867/attachment.html>
Hi Tim, I''m not sure I understand this output completely, but have you tried detaching the spare? Cindy On 11/10/09 09:21, Tim Cook wrote:> So, I currently have a pool with 12 disks raid-z2 (12+2). As you may > have seen in the other thread, I''ve been having on and off issues with > b126 randomly dropping drives. Well, I think after changing several > cables, and doing about 20 reboots plugging one drive in at a time (I > only booted to the marvell bios, not the whole way into the OS), I''ve > gotten the marvell cards to settle down. The problem is, I''m now seeing > this in a zpool output: > > pool: fserv > state: ONLINE > scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Tue Nov 10 > 09:15:12 2009 > config: > > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > fserv ONLINE 0 0 0 > raidz2-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c8t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c8t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c8t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c8t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c8t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c8t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c7t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c7t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c7t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > spare-11 ONLINE 0 0 5 > c7t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 30K resilvered > c7t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > spares > c7t6d0 INUSE currently in use > > > Anyone have any thoughts? I''m trying to figure out how to get c7t6d0 > back to being a hotspare since c7t5d0 is installed, there, and happy. > It''s almost as if it''s using both disks for "spare-11" right now. > > --Tim > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Cindy Swearingen <Cindy.Swearingen at sun.com>wrote:> Hi Tim, > > I''m not sure I understand this output completely, but have you > tried detaching the spare? > > Cindy > >Hey Cindy, Detaching did in fact solve the issue. During my previous issues when the spare kicked in, it actually automatically detached itself once I replaced the failed drive, so I didn''t understand what was going on this time around. Thanks! --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20091110/9520b486/attachment.html>
Hi Tim, I always have to detach the spare. I haven''t tested it yet, but I see an improvement in this behavior, with the integration of this CR: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6893090 clearing a vdev should automatically detach spare Cindy On 11/10/09 16:03, Tim Cook wrote:> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Cindy Swearingen > <Cindy.Swearingen at sun.com <mailto:Cindy.Swearingen at sun.com>> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > I''m not sure I understand this output completely, but have you > tried detaching the spare? > > Cindy > > > Hey Cindy, > > Detaching did in fact solve the issue. During my previous issues when > the spare kicked in, it actually automatically detached itself once I > replaced the failed drive, so I didn''t understand what was going on this > time around. > > Thanks! > --Tim