[zfs-discuss] Mount ZFS pool on different system

2009-01-03 Thread D. Eckert
Hi,

I have a faulty hard drive on my notebook, but I have all my data stored on an 
external USB HDD with a zfs.

Now I want to mount that external zfs hdd on a different notebook running 
solaris and supporting zfs as well.

I am unable to do so. If I'd run zpool create, it would wipe out my external 
hdd what I of course want to avoid.

So how can I mount a zfs filesystem on a different machine without destroying 
it?

Thanks and Regards,

Dave.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


[zfs-discuss] SOLVED: Mount ZFS pool on different system

2009-01-03 Thread D. Eckert
RTFM seems to solve many problems ;-)

:# zpool import poolname
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


[zfs-discuss] ZFS disk read failure when pools are simultaneously scrubbed, x86 snv_104

2009-01-03 Thread Jake Carroll
Hi.

Running snv_104 x86 against some very generic hardware as a testbed for some 
fun projects and as a home fileserver. Rough specifications of the host:

* Intel Q6600
* 6GB DDR2
* Multiple 250GB, 500GB SATA connected HDD's of mixed vendors
* Gigabyte GA-DQ6 series motherboard
* etc.

The problem or interesting scenario.

I decided to cron a zpool scrub of all three zpool's on the host system 
simultaneously. Something like this:

00 01 * * * /usr/sbin/zpool scrub backups  /dev/null 21
00 01 * * * /usr/sbin/zpool scrub ztank  /dev/null 21
00 01 * * * /usr/sbin/zpool scrub zebraware_root  /dev/null 21

So, we know from reading documentation that:

[i]Because  scrubbing  and  resilvering  are  I/O-intensive
 operations, ZFS only allows one at a time. If a scrub is
 already in progress,  the  zpool  scrub  command  ter-
 minates  it  and starts a new scrub. If a resilver is in
 progress, ZFS does not allow a scrub to be started until
 the resilver completes[/i]

Please note the [b]ZFS only allows one at a time[/b] statement. Maybe 
relevant to what I'm about to explain. Maybe not.

I've noticed that when I lay my cron out in such a way two things happen:

1. On the backups pool, which is a simple zpool stripe with no redundancy, 
mirroring or anything of use, the pool will fault at some interminant point 
inside the scrub operation

2. The same thing will ALSO occur on the root pool (zebraware_root).

However, if the scrubs are cron'ed at DIFFERENT times, allowing a period of 
time to lapse where each will complete before the next starts, these errors are 
not presented in /var/adm/messages, and a zpool status -x reports all pools 
as healthy. It is only if the pools are cron'ed to scrub simultaneously will 
read errors occur. Some interesting output, occurring just after the 
simultaneous scrub starts on the three pools that exist on the host:

Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: 
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1c,4/pci-...@0/i...@0 (ata0):
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5   timeout: abort request, target=0 lun=0
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: 
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1c,4/pci-...@0/i...@0 (ata0):
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5   timeout: abort device, target=0 lun=0
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: 
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1c,4/pci-...@0/i...@0 (ata0):
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5   timeout: reset target, target=0 lun=0
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: 
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1c,4/pci-...@0/i...@0 (ata0):
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5   timeout: reset bus, target=0 lun=0
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: 
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1c,4/pci-...@0/i...@0 (ata0):
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5   timeout: early timeout, target=1 lun=0
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: 
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1c,4/pci-...@0/i...@0 (ata0):
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5   timeout: early timeout, target=0 lun=0
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 gda: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: 
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1c,4/pci-...@0/i...@0/c...@0,0 (Disk0):
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5   Error for command 'read sector' Error Level: 
Informational
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 gda: [ID 107833 kern.notice]  Sense Key: aborted 
command
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 gda: [ID 107833 kern.notice]  Vendor 'Gen-ATA ' error 
code: 0x3
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 gda: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: 
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1c,4/pci-...@0/i...@0/c...@1,0 (Disk1):
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5   Error for command 'read sector' Error Level: 
Informational
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 gda: [ID 107833 kern.notice]  Sense Key: aborted 
command
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 gda: [ID 107833 kern.notice]  Vendor 'Gen-ATA ' error 
code: 0x3
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 gda: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: 
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1c,4/pci-...@0/i...@0/c...@0,0 (Disk0):
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5   Error for command 'read sector' Error Level: 
Informational
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 gda: [ID 107833 kern.notice]  Sense Key: aborted 
command
Dec 30 06:37:22 rapoosev5 gda: [ID 107833 kern.notice]  Vendor 'Gen-ATA ' error 
code: 0x3

Shortly after this, we'll see:

Jan  1 06:39:58 rapoosev5 fmd: [ID 441519 daemon.error] SUNW-MSG-ID: 
ZFS-8000-FD, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major
Jan  1 06:39:58 rapoosev5 EVENT-TIME: Thu Jan  1 06:39:56 EST 2009
Jan  1 06:39:58 rapoosev5 PLATFORM: P35-DQ6, CSN:  , HOSTNAME: rapoosev5
Jan  1 06:39:58 rapoosev5 SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0
Jan  1 06:39:58 rapoosev5 EVENT-ID: e6d95684-5ec0-4897-d761-b7e16ed40f2c
Jan  1 06:39:58 rapoosev5 DESC: The number of I/O errors associated with a ZFS 
device exceeded
Jan  1 06:39:58 rapoosev5acceptable levels.  Refer to 
http://sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-FD for more information.

And bang. Part of a pool is taken offline. We all know where that ends up. At 
this point, I can issue a zpool clear to the filesystems in question, 

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS disk read failure when pools are simultaneously scrubbed, x86 snv_104

2009-01-03 Thread Tomas Ögren
On 03 January, 2009 - Jake Carroll sent me these 5,9K bytes:

 Hi.
 
 Running snv_104 x86 against some very generic hardware as a testbed for some 
 fun projects and as a home fileserver. Rough specifications of the host:
 
 * Intel Q6600
 * 6GB DDR2
 * Multiple 250GB, 500GB SATA connected HDD's of mixed vendors
 * Gigabyte GA-DQ6 series motherboard
 * etc.
 
 The problem or interesting scenario.
 
 I decided to cron a zpool scrub of all three zpool's on the host system 
 simultaneously. Something like this:
 
 00 01 * * * /usr/sbin/zpool scrub backups  /dev/null 21
 00 01 * * * /usr/sbin/zpool scrub ztank  /dev/null 21
 00 01 * * * /usr/sbin/zpool scrub zebraware_root  /dev/null 21
 
 So, we know from reading documentation that:
 
 [i]Because  scrubbing  and  resilvering  are  I/O-intensive
  operations, ZFS only allows one at a time. If a scrub is
  already in progress,  the  zpool  scrub  command  ter-
  minates  it  and starts a new scrub. If a resilver is in
  progress, ZFS does not allow a scrub to be started until
  the resilver completes[/i]
 
 Please note the [b]ZFS only allows one at a time[/b] statement.
 Maybe relevant to what I'm about to explain. Maybe not.

One at a time per pool.

 So, my puzzling thoughts:
 
 1. Am I just experiencing some form of crappy consumer grade
 controller I/O limitations or an issue of the controllers on this
 consumer grade kit not being up to the task of handling multiple
 scrubs occurring on different filesystems at any given time?

Probably. When getting too much load, you might get some overhearing or
something. Shouldn't happen if the hw + drivers works as expected..

You will probably get similar results if you start too much regular io..

 2. Is this natural and to be expected (and moreover, am I breaking the
 rules) by attempting to scrub more than one pool at once - ergo
 [i]well, what did you expect?[/i]

I scrub more than one pool at a time all the time, no issues.

 Out of fear and sensibility, I've never simultaneously scrubbed
 production pools on our 6 series arrays at work, or for anything that
 actually matters - but I am interested in getting to the bottom of
 this, all the same.

/Tomas
-- 
Tomas Ögren, st...@acc.umu.se, http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS poor performance on Areca 1231ML

2009-01-03 Thread Roch Bourbonnais

Le 20 déc. 08 à 22:34, Dmitry Razguliaev a écrit :

 Hi, I faced with a similar problem, like Ross, but still have not  
 found a solution. I have raidz out of 9 sata disks connected to  
 internal and 2 external sata controllers. Bonnie++ gives me the  
 following results:
 nexenta,8G, 
 104393,43,159637,30,57855,13,77677,38,56296,7,281.8,1,16,26450,99,+++ 
 ++,+++,29909,93,24232,99,+,+++,13912,99
 while running on a single disk it gives me the following:
 nexenta,8G, 
 54382,23,49141,8,25955,5,58696,27,60815,5,270.8,1,16,19793,76,+,+ 
 ++,32637,99,22958,99,+,+++,10490,99
 The performance difference of between those two seems to be too  
 small. I checked zpool iostat -v during bonnie++ itelligent writing  
 and it looks it, every time more or less like this:


Did you run :
zpool iostat -v 1
  ?

   capacity operationsbandwidth
 pool used  avail   read  write   read  write
 --  -  -  -  -  -  -
 iTank   7.20G  2.60T  12 13  1.52M  1.58M
  raidz17.20G  2.60T  12 13  1.52M  1.58M
c8d0-  -   1  1   172K   203K
c7d1-  -   1  1   170K   203K
c6t0d0  -  -  1  1   172K   203K
c8d1-  -   1  1   173K   203K
c9d0-  -   1  1   174K   203K
c10d0   -  -  1  1   174K   203K
c6t1d0  -  -  1  1   175K   203K
c5t0d0s0  -  -   1  1   176K   203K
c5t1d0s0  -  -   1  1   176K   203K

 As far as I understand it, less each vdev executes only 1 i/o in a  
 time. time. however, on a single device zpool iostat -v gives me the  
 following:


   capacity operationsbandwidth
 pool used  avail   read  write   read  write
 --  -  -  -  -  -  -
 rpool5.47G   181G  3  3   441K   434K
  c7d0s05.47G   181G  3  3   441K   434K
 --  -  -  -  -  -  -

 In this case this device performs 3 i/o in a time, which gives it  
 much higher bandwidth per unit.

 Is there any way to increase i/o counts for my iTank zpool?
 I'm running OS-11.2008 on MSI P45 Diamond with 4G of memory

 Best Regards, Dmitry
 -- 
 This message posted from opensolaris.org
 ___
 zfs-discuss mailing list
 zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
 http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re: [zfs-discuss] Mount ZFS pool on different system

2009-01-03 Thread Mattias Pantzare
 Now I want to mount that external zfs hdd on a different notebook running 
 solaris and
 supporting zfs as well.

 I am unable to do so. If I'd run zpool create, it would wipe out my external 
 hdd what I of
 course want to avoid.

 So how can I mount a zfs filesystem on a different machine without destroying 
 it?


zpool import
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS disk read failure when pools are simultaneously scrubbed, x86 snv_104

2009-01-03 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Jake Carroll wrote:

 1. Am I just experiencing some form of crappy consumer grade 
 controller I/O limitations or an issue of the controllers on this 
 consumer grade kit not being up to the task of handling multiple 
 scrubs occurring on different filesystems at any given time?

This seems like the result of either a device weakness, or a device 
driver weakness.  Many people here have requested shorter timeouts on 
devices and it seems that this is an example of why shorter timeouts 
are not a good idea.

It would useful to find out of you can cause this problem by causing 
severe I/O loads other than via 'scrub'.

Bob
==
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re: [zfs-discuss] Error 16: Inconsistent filesystem structure after a change in the system

2009-01-03 Thread Rafal Pratnicki
I recovered the system and created the opensolaris-12 BE. The system was 
working fine. I had the grub menu, it was fully recovered.
At this stage I decided to create a new BE but leave the opensolaris-12 BE as 
an active BE and manually boot to the opensolaris-13 BE.
So the situation looked like this:
beadm list
opensolaris-12 R /  3.73G   static 2009-01-03 14:44 
opensolaris-13 N  -  120.74M static 2009-01-03 14:51 
Running the opensolaris-13 BE I installed 2 packages: SUNWsmbs SUNWsmbskr 
responsible for the solaris CIFS service. I reboot the box and it still was 
fine. I had the grub menu and the boot_archive wasn't corrupted. After the 
reboot I configured the solaris CIFS service and exchanged some data between 
the opensolaris and a laptop via a network. I've been doing this for 3h. Then I 
decided to reboot the box again to see if it's still OK. I used init 6, but 
this time I ended up in the grub menu. When I manually wanted to boot it 
looked like this:
bootfs rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-13
OK
kernel$ /platform/i86pc/kernel/$ISADIR/unix -B $ZFS-BOOTFS
Error 16: Inconsistent filesystem structure
I had to use rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-12 and it was fine.
I didn't even get to load the boot_archive module. Usually it breaks during the 
boot_archive module load.
I'm unable to use the opensolaris-13 BE and I've lost the CIFS configuration as 
I can't boot the BE.

Can someone wise help me to narrow down this bug.
Thanks in advance
Rafal
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re: [zfs-discuss] Error 16: Inconsistent filesystem structure after a change in the system

2009-01-03 Thread Jan Spitalnik
Hey Rafal,

this sounds like missing GANG block support in GRUB. Checkout putback  
log for snv_106 (afaik), there's a bug where grub fails like this.

Cheers,
Spity

On 3.1.2009, at 21:11, Rafal Pratnicki wrote:

 I recovered the system and created the opensolaris-12 BE. The system  
 was working fine. I had the grub menu, it was fully recovered.
 At this stage I decided to create a new BE but leave the  
 opensolaris-12 BE as an active BE and manually boot to the  
 opensolaris-13 BE.
 So the situation looked like this:
 beadm list
 opensolaris-12 R /  3.73G   static 2009-01-03 14:44
 opensolaris-13 N  -  120.74M static 2009-01-03 14:51
 Running the opensolaris-13 BE I installed 2 packages: SUNWsmbs  
 SUNWsmbskr responsible for the solaris CIFS service. I reboot the  
 box and it still was fine. I had the grub menu and the boot_archive  
 wasn't corrupted. After the reboot I configured the solaris CIFS  
 service and exchanged some data between the opensolaris and a laptop  
 via a network. I've been doing this for 3h. Then I decided to reboot  
 the box again to see if it's still OK. I used init 6, but this time  
 I ended up in the grub menu. When I manually wanted to boot it  
 looked like this:
 bootfs rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-13
 OK
 kernel$ /platform/i86pc/kernel/$ISADIR/unix -B $ZFS-BOOTFS
 Error 16: Inconsistent filesystem structure
 I had to use rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-12 and it was fine.
 I didn't even get to load the boot_archive module. Usually it breaks  
 during the boot_archive module load.
 I'm unable to use the opensolaris-13 BE and I've lost the CIFS  
 configuration as I can't boot the BE.

 Can someone wise help me to narrow down this bug.
 Thanks in advance
 Rafal
 -- 
 This message posted from opensolaris.org
 ___
 zfs-discuss mailing list
 zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
 http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs HardWare raid - data integrity?

2009-01-03 Thread A Darren Dunham
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 01:53:03PM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
 The thing I don't like about the checksums is that they trigger for
 things other than bad disks, like if your machine loses power during a
 resilver, or other corner cases and bugs.  I think the Netapp
 block-level RAID-layer checksums don't trigger for as many other
 reasons as the ZFS filesystem-level checksums, so chasing problems is
 easier.

Why does losing power during a resilver cause any issues for the
checksums in ZFS?  Admittedly, bugs can always cause problems, but
that's true for any software.  I'm not sure that I see a reason that the
integrated checksums and the separate checksums are more or less prone
to bugs. 

Under what situations would you expect any differences between the ZFS
checksums and the Netapp checksums to appear?

I have no evidence, but I suspect the only difference (modulo any bugs)
is how the software handles checksum failures.  

-- 
Darren
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re: [zfs-discuss] What will happen when write a block of 8k if the recordsize is 128k. Will 128k be written instead of 8k?

2009-01-03 Thread Robert Milkowski




Hello qihua,

Saturday, December 27, 2008, 7:04:06 AM, you wrote:







After we changed the recordsize to 8k, We first used dd to move the data files around. We could see the time recovering a archive log dropped from 40mins to 4 mins. But when using iostat to check, the read io is about 8K for each read, the write IO is still 128k for each write. Then we used cp to move the data files around as someone said dd might not change the recordsize. after that, the time to recover a log file was drop from 4mins to 1/4 mins.

So it seems dd doens't change the recordsize completely, and cp does. And is there any utility that could check the recordsize of an existing file?






Probably what happened was that when you did your dd first old files were still occupying disk space, possibly outer regions. Then you deleted them and did cp again - this time zfs probably put most of the data on the outer regions of disks and your backup got faster. (it all depends on your file sizes and disk sizes).




--
Best regards,
Robert Milkowski  mailto:mi...@task.gda.pl
   http://milek.blogspot.com



___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss