Robert Hartzell
2011-Mar-04 16:22 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
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 this: Current partition table (original): Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector 0 usr wm 34 149.04GB 312560350 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 8 reserved wm 312560351 8.00MB 312576734 Spare disk partition table looks like this: Current partition table (original): Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector 0 usr wm 34 149.00GB 312483582 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 8 reserved wm 312483583 8.00MB 312499966 So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are about 40mb smaller then the original disks. I know I can just add a larger disk but I would rather user the hardware I have if possible. 1) Is there anyway to replace the failed disk with one of the spares? 2) Can I recreate the zpool using 3 of the original disks and one of the slightly smaller spares? Will zpool/zfs adjust its size to the smaller disk? 3) If #2 is possible would I still be able to use the last still shelved disk as a spare? If #2 is possible I would probably recreate the zpool as raidz2 instead of the current raidz1. Any info/comments would be greatly appreciated. Robert -- Robert Hartzell bear at rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc.
Tim Cook
2011-Mar-04 17:01 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Robert Hartzell <bear at rwhartzell.net>wrote:> 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 this: > > Current partition table (original): > Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > > Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0 usr wm 34 149.04GB 312560350 > 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 8 reserved wm 312560351 8.00MB 312576734 > > Spare disk partition table looks like this: > > Current partition table (original): > Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > > Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0 usr wm 34 149.00GB 312483582 > 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 8 reserved wm 312483583 8.00MB 312499966 > > So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are > about 40mb smaller then the original disks. > > I know I can just add a larger disk but I would rather user the hardware I > have if possible. > 1) Is there anyway to replace the failed disk with one of the spares? > 2) Can I recreate the zpool using 3 of the original disks and one of the > slightly smaller spares? Will zpool/zfs adjust its size to the smaller disk? > 3) If #2 is possible would I still be able to use the last still shelved > disk as a spare? > > If #2 is possible I would probably recreate the zpool as raidz2 instead of > the current raidz1. > > Any info/comments would be greatly appreciated. > > Robert > > >You cannot. That''s why I suggested two years ago that they chop off 1% from the end of the disk at install time to equalize drive sizes. That way you you wouldn''t run into this problem trying to replace disks from a different vendor or different batch. The response was that Sun makes sure all drives are exactly the same size (although I do recall someone on this forum having this issue with Sun OEM disks as well). It''s ridiculous they don''t take into account the slight differences in drive sizes from vendor to vendor. Forcing you to single-source your disks is a bad habit to get into IMO. --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110304/28d98598/attachment.html>
Robert Hartzell
2011-Mar-04 17:37 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Mar 4, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Tim Cook wrote:> > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Robert Hartzell <bear at rwhartzell.net> wrote: > 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 this: > > Current partition table (original): > Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > > Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0 usr wm 34 149.04GB 312560350 > 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 8 reserved wm 312560351 8.00MB 312576734 > > Spare disk partition table looks like this: > > Current partition table (original): > Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > > Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0 usr wm 34 149.00GB 312483582 > 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 8 reserved wm 312483583 8.00MB 312499966 > > So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are about 40mb smaller then the original disks. > > I know I can just add a larger disk but I would rather user the hardware I have if possible. > 1) Is there anyway to replace the failed disk with one of the spares? > 2) Can I recreate the zpool using 3 of the original disks and one of the slightly smaller spares? Will zpool/zfs adjust its size to the smaller disk? > 3) If #2 is possible would I still be able to use the last still shelved disk as a spare? > > If #2 is possible I would probably recreate the zpool as raidz2 instead of the current raidz1. > > Any info/comments would be greatly appreciated. > > Robert > > > > > You cannot. That''s why I suggested two years ago that they chop off 1% from the end of the disk at install time to equalize drive sizes. That way you you wouldn''t run into this problem trying to replace disks from a different vendor or different batch. The response was that Sun makes sure all drives are exactly the same size (although I do recall someone on this forum having this issue with Sun OEM disks as well). It''s ridiculous they don''t take into account the slight differences in drive sizes from vendor to vendor. Forcing you to single-source your disks is a bad habit to get into IMO. > > --Tim >Well that sucks... So I guess the only option is to replace the disk with a larger one? Or are you saying thats not possible either? I can upgrade to larger disks but then there is no guarantee that I can even buy 4 identical disks off the shelf at any one time. Thanks for the info -- Robert Hartzell bear at rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110304/d2b5bad0/attachment-0001.html>
Cindy Swearingen
2011-Mar-04 17:46 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
Hi Robert, We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window. Yes, you can do #2 below and the pool size will be adjusted down to the smaller size. Before you do this, I would check the sizes of both spares. If both spares are "equivalent" smaller sizes, you could use those to build the replacement pool with the larger disks and then put the extra larger disks on the shelf. Thanks, Cindy On 03/04/11 09:22, Robert Hartzell wrote:> 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 this: > > Current partition table (original): > Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > > Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0 usr wm 34 149.04GB 312560350 > 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 8 reserved wm 312560351 8.00MB 312576734 > > Spare disk partition table looks like this: > > Current partition table (original): > Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > > Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0 usr wm 34 149.00GB 312483582 > 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 8 reserved wm 312483583 8.00MB 312499966 > > So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are about 40mb smaller then the original disks. > > I know I can just add a larger disk but I would rather user the hardware I have if possible. > 1) Is there anyway to replace the failed disk with one of the spares? > 2) Can I recreate the zpool using 3 of the original disks and one of the slightly smaller spares? Will zpool/zfs adjust its size to the smaller disk? > 3) If #2 is possible would I still be able to use the last still shelved disk as a spare? > > If #2 is possible I would probably recreate the zpool as raidz2 instead of the current raidz1. > > Any info/comments would be greatly appreciated. > > Robert > > -- > Robert Hartzell > bear at rwhartzell.net > RwHartzell.Net, Inc. > > > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Joerg Schilling
2011-Mar-04 18:07 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
Cindy Swearingen <cindy.swearingen at oracle.com> wrote:> Hi Robert, > > We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent > sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window.In former times, similar problems applied to partitioned disks with UFS and we at that time did check the market for the lowest disk size in a disk class and sold out disks with partitions that have been limited to the lowest size in order to be able to easily replace customer disks. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Mark J Musante
2011-Mar-04 18:10 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
The fix for 6991788 would probably let the 40mb drive work, but it would depend on the asize of the pool. On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Cindy Swearingen wrote:> Hi Robert, > > We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent > sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window. > > Yes, you can do #2 below and the pool size will be adjusted down to the > smaller size. Before you do this, I would check the sizes of both > spares. > > If both spares are "equivalent" smaller sizes, you could use those to > build the replacement pool with the larger disks and then put the extra > larger disks on the shelf. > > Thanks, > > Cindy > > > > On 03/04/11 09:22, Robert Hartzell wrote: >> 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 this: >> >> Current partition table (original): >> Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) >> >> Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector >> 0 usr wm 34 149.04GB 312560350 >> 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 2 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 3 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 4 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 5 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 6 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 8 >> reserved wm 312560351 8.00MB 312576734 >> >> Spare disk partition table looks like this: >> >> Current partition table (original): >> Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) >> >> Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector >> 0 usr wm 34 149.00GB 312483582 >> 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 2 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 3 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 4 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 5 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 6 >> unassigned wm 0 0 0 8 >> reserved wm 312483583 8.00MB 312499966 >> So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are >> about 40mb smaller then the original disks. >> I know I can just add a larger disk but I would rather user the hardware I >> have if possible. >> 1) Is there anyway to replace the failed disk with one of the spares? >> 2) Can I recreate the zpool using 3 of the original disks and one of the >> slightly smaller spares? Will zpool/zfs adjust its size to the smaller >> disk? >> 3) If #2 is possible would I still be able to use the last still shelved >> disk as a spare? >> >> If #2 is possible I would probably recreate the zpool as raidz2 instead of >> the current raidz1. >> >> Any info/comments would be greatly appreciated. >> >> Robert >> -- Robert Hartzell >> bear at rwhartzell.net >> RwHartzell.Net, Inc. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >Regards, markm
Eric D. Mudama
2011-Mar-04 18:19 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Fri, Mar 4 at 9:22, Robert Hartzell wrote:>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 this: > >Current partition table (original): >Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > >Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0 usr wm 34 149.04GB 312560350 > 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 8 reserved wm 312560351 8.00MB 312576734 > >Spare disk partition table looks like this: > >Current partition table (original): >Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > >Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0 usr wm 34 149.00GB 312483582 > 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 > 8 reserved wm 312483583 8.00MB 312499966 > >So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are about 40mb smaller then the original disks.One comment: The IDEMA LBA01 spec size of a 160GB device is 312,581,808 sectors. Instead of those WD models, where neither the old nor new drives follow the IDEMA recommendation, consider buying a drive that reports that many sectors. Almost all models these days should be following the IDEMA recommendations due to all the troubles people have had. --eric -- Eric D. Mudama edmudama at bounceswoosh.org
Cindy Swearingen
2011-Mar-04 18:46 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
Robert, Which Solaris release is this? Thanks, Cindy On 03/04/11 11:10, Mark J Musante wrote:> > The fix for 6991788 would probably let the 40mb drive work, but it would > depend on the asize of the pool. > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Cindy Swearingen wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent >> sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window. >> >> Yes, you can do #2 below and the pool size will be adjusted down to the >> smaller size. Before you do this, I would check the sizes of both >> spares. >> >> If both spares are "equivalent" smaller sizes, you could use those to >> build the replacement pool with the larger disks and then put the extra >> larger disks on the shelf. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Cindy >> >> >> >> On 03/04/11 09:22, Robert Hartzell wrote: >>> 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 this: >>> >>> Current partition table (original): >>> Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) >>> >>> Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector >>> 0 usr wm 34 149.04GB >>> 312560350 1 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 2 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 3 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 4 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 5 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 6 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 8 reserved wm 312560351 >>> 8.00MB 312576734 >>> >>> Spare disk partition table looks like this: >>> >>> Current partition table (original): >>> Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) >>> >>> Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector >>> 0 usr wm 34 149.00GB >>> 312483582 1 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 2 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 3 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 4 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 5 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 6 unassigned wm 0 >>> 0 0 8 reserved wm 312483583 >>> 8.00MB 312499966 >>> So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and >>> are about 40mb smaller then the original disks. I know I can just add >>> a larger disk but I would rather user the hardware I have if possible. >>> 1) Is there anyway to replace the failed disk with one of the spares? >>> 2) Can I recreate the zpool using 3 of the original disks and one of >>> the slightly smaller spares? Will zpool/zfs adjust its size to the >>> smaller disk? >>> 3) If #2 is possible would I still be able to use the last still >>> shelved disk as a spare? >>> >>> If #2 is possible I would probably recreate the zpool as raidz2 >>> instead of the current raidz1. >>> >>> Any info/comments would be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> Robert >>> -- Robert Hartzell >>> bear at rwhartzell.net >>> RwHartzell.Net, Inc. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > Regards, > markm
Robert Hartzell
2011-Mar-04 19:50 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote:> Robert, > > Which Solaris release is this? > > Thanks, > > Cindy >Solaris 11 express 2010.11 -- Robert Hartzell bear at rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc.
Robert Hartzell
2011-Mar-04 19:56 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:> On Fri, Mar 4 at 9:22, Robert Hartzell wrote: >> 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 this: >> >> Current partition table (original): >> Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) >> >> Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector >> 0 usr wm 34 149.04GB 312560350 >> 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 8 reserved wm 312560351 8.00MB 312576734 >> >> Spare disk partition table looks like this: >> >> Current partition table (original): >> Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) >> >> Part Tag Flag First Sector Size Last Sector >> 0 usr wm 34 149.00GB 312483582 >> 1 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 2 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 3 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 4 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 5 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 6 unassigned wm 0 0 0 >> 8 reserved wm 312483583 8.00MB 312499966 >> >> So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are about 40mb smaller then the original disks. > > > One comment: The IDEMA LBA01 spec size of a 160GB device is > 312,581,808 sectors. > > Instead of those WD models, where neither the old nor new drives > follow the IDEMA recommendation, consider buying a drive that reports > that many sectors. Almost all models these days should be following > the IDEMA recommendations due to all the troubles people have had. > > --eric > > -- > Eric D. Mudama > edmudama at bounceswoosh.org >Thats encouraging, if I have to I would rather buy one new disk then 4. Thanks, Robert -- Robert Hartzell bear at rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc.
Robert Hartzell
2011-Mar-04 20:12 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Mar 4, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote:> Hi Robert, > > We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent > sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window. > > Yes, you can do #2 below and the pool size will be adjusted down to the > smaller size. Before you do this, I would check the sizes of both > spares. >I already checked, they are equivalent.> If both spares are "equivalent" smaller sizes, you could use those to > build the replacement pool with the larger disks and then put the extra > larger disks on the shelf. > > Thanks, > > CindyI think thats what I will do, I don''t wanna spend money if I don''t have to... I''m kinda funny that way :-) Thanks for the info Cindy -- Robert Hartzell bear at rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc.
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2011-Mar-04 21:29 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
> > One comment: The IDEMA LBA01 spec size of a 160GB device is > > 312,581,808 sectors. > > > > Instead of those WD models, where neither the old nor new drives > > follow the IDEMA recommendation, consider buying a drive that > > reports > > that many sectors. Almost all models these days should be following > > the IDEMA recommendations due to all the troubles people have had. > > > > --eric > > > > -- > > Eric D. Mudama > > edmudama at bounceswoosh.org > > > > > Thats encouraging, if I have to I would rather buy one new disk then > 4.Get one that''s a bit larger. It won''t cost you a fortune. If the reseller is nice, you may even return the old one...... 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 intelligibelt. Det er et element?rt imperativ for alle pedagoger ? unng? eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer p? norsk.
Edward Ned Harvey
2011-Mar-05 04:02 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
> From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook > > The response was that Sun makes sure all drives > are exactly the same size (although I do recall someone on this forumhaving> this issue with Sun OEM disks as well). ?That was me. Sun branded Intel SSD being reported 0.01Gb smaller. But after bashing my brains out for a few days, we discovered there was some operation I could perform on the HBA which solved the problem. I forget exactly what it was - something like a factory installed disk label or something, which I overwrote in order to gain that 0.01G on the new drive. For this reason, I have made a habit of slicing drives, and leaving the last 1G unused. It''s kind of a hassle, but as Cindy mentions, the problem should be solved in current releases.
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2011-Mar-05 12:48 UTC
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
> You cannot. That''s why I suggested two years ago that they chop off 1% > from the end of the disk at install time to equalize drive sizes. That > way you you wouldn''t run into this problem trying to replace disks > from a different vendor or different batch. The response was that Sun > makes sure all drives are exactly the same size (although I do recall > someone on this forum having this issue with Sun OEM disks as well).We had a disk crash some months back on a Sun pizzabox - disks were mirrored (linux software raid), so no problem, except the new drive was a bit smaller than the original. This was a replacement part from Sun^WOracle... Since the machine was a compute node, I ended up reinstalling it instead of waiting for another replacement. 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 intelligibelt. Det er et element?rt imperativ for alle pedagoger ? unng? eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer p? norsk.