Hi all I have a rather large pool that has been a bit troublesome. We''ve lost some drives (WD Black), and though that should work out well, I now have a pool that doesn''t look too healthy. http://paste.ubuntu.com/611973/ Two drives have been resilvered, but the old drives still stick. The drive that has died still hasn''t been taken over by a spare, although the two spares show up as AVAIL. Anyone that know how I can fix this? 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.
> Two drives have been resilvered, but the old drives still stick. The drive that has died still hasn''t been taken over by a spare, although the two spares show up as AVAIL.For the one that hasn''t been replaced try doing: zpool replace dbpool c8t24d0 c4t43d0 For the two that have already been replaced you can try: zpool detach dbpool c4t1d0/old zpool detach dbpool c4t6d0/old If that doesn''t work then you need the disk ID from the old disks and use that in the detach command instead of the c4t1d0 id. -Don
> > Shouldn''t ZFS detach these automatically? It has done so earlier... > It is not supposed to- at least that I recall.Earlier replaces have gone well. One thing is spares, which I can understand somewhat, but dead drives should definetely be tossed off when replaced 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.
> > The system became non-responsible after two drives was lost, and > > replaced with spares, in that VDEV. That bug has been filed and > > acknowleged. Take a RAIDz2 with two spares and remove a drive from > > the pool, let it resilver to a spare, remove another, wait until it > > resilvers again, and remove the third. The system will become rather > > dead - even the rpool will be unavailable, even if both the data > > pool and the rpool are bothe theoretically healthy > > Can''t say I''ve ever run into that situation. I''d suggest looking into > the pool failmode setting but that still wouldn''t make a lot of sense. > Any idea why you are getting so many failures?CC:ing this to the appropriate lists As a first, the default is to let go of failed devices. I haven''t tweaked that part, nor any part of the pool. If a drive failes, it should be replaced by a spare, and when a drive is replaced by a new one, the old "ghost" should disappear. Neither of this happens at times. It seems sometimes the zpool "forgets" a dead drive and let ihang. This may trigger the bug which turns a pool and indeed the system unusable (if two drives in a raidz2 are lost, but resilvererd, losing the third will hang the system). The remedy seemed to be to zpool detach the drives. Still, the bug(s) exist(s) to allow a system to be rendered unusable just with a few drives lost, long before the pool is lost. 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.