Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
Haudy Kazemi wrote: I think a better question would be: what kind of tests would be most promising for turning some subclass of these lost pools reported on the mailing list into an actionable bug? my first bet would be writing tools that test for ignored sync cache commands leading to lost writes, and apply them to the case when iSCSI targets are rebooted but the initiator isn't. I think in the process of writing the tool you'll immediately bump into a defect, because you'll realize there is no equivalent of a 'hard' iSCSI mount like there is in NFS. and there cannot be a strict equivalent to 'hard' mounts in iSCSI, because we want zpool redundancy to preserve availability when an iSCSI target goes away. I think the whole model is wrong somehow. I'd surely hope that a ZFS pool with redundancy built on iSCSI targets could survive the loss of some targets whether due to actual failures or necessary upgrades to the iSCSI targets (think OS upgrades + reboots on the systems that are offering iSCSI devices to the network.) I've had a mirrored zpool created from solaris iSCSI target servers in production since April 2008. I've had disks die and reboots of the target servers - ZFS has handled them very well. My biggest wish is to be able to tune the iSCSI timeout value so ZFS can failover reads/writes to the other half of the mirror quicker than it does now (about 180 seconds on my config). A minor gripe considering the features that ZFS provides. I've also had the zfs server (the initiator aggregating the mirrored disks) unintentionally power cycled with the iscsi zpool imported. The pool re-imported and scrubbed fine. ZFS is definitely my FS of choice - by far. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mobo SATA migration to AOC-SAT2-MV8 SATA card
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:42:43 -0700 Jeff Bonwick jeff.bonw...@sun.com wrote: Yep, right again. That is, if the boot drives are not one of those.. ;-) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mobo SATA migration to AOC-SAT2-MV8 SATA card
A couple questions out of pure curiosity. Working on the assumption that you are going to be adding more drives to your server, why not just add the new drives to the Supermicro controller and keep the existing pool (well vdev) where it is? Reading your blog, it seems that you need one (or two if you are mirroring) SATA ports for your rpool. Why not just migrate two drives to the new controller and leave the others where they are? OpenSolaris won't card where the drives are physically connected as long as you export/import. -Jebnor On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 16:21 -0700, Simon Breden wrote: Hi, I'm using 6 SATA ports from the motherboard but I've now run out of SATA ports, and so I'm thinking of adding a Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 8-port SATA controller card. What is the procedure for migrating the drives to this card? Is it a simple case of (1) issuing a 'zpool export pool_name' command, (2) shutdown, (3) insert card and move all SATA cables for drives from mobo to card, (4) boot and issue a 'zpool import pool_name' command ? Thanks, Simon http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/a-home-fileserver-using-zfs/ -- Louis-Frédéric Feuillette jeb...@gmail.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Server Cloning With ZFS?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Dave Ringkorno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: What would be wrong with this: 1) Create a recursive snapshot of the root pool on homer. 2) zfs send this snapshot to a file on some NFS server. 3) Boot my 220R (same architecture as the E450) into single user mode from a DVD. 4) Create a zpool on the 220R's local disks. 5) zfs receive the snapshot created in step 2 to the new pool. 6) Set the bootfs property. 7) Reboot the 220R. Now my 220R comes up as homer, with its IP address, users, root pool filesystems, any software that was installed in the old homer's root pool, etc. No, your 220R will most likely be unbootable. Because you haven't run installboot. See the link I sent earlier. Other than that, the steps should work out fine. I've only tested it on two servers of the same type though (both are T2000). -- Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Miles Nordincar...@ivy.net wrote: fan == Fajar A Nugraha fa...@fajar.net writes: et == Erik Trimble erik.trim...@sun.com writes: fan The N610N that I have (BCM3302, 300MHz, 64MB) isn't even fan powerful enough to saturate either the gigabit wired I can't find that device. Did you misspell it or something? BCM probably means Broadcom, and Broadcom is probably MIPS---it's TI (omap) and Marvell (orion) that are selling arm. Correct, it's MIPS. My point is the embedded device and cheap netbook I've used aren't likely to be powerful enough for zfs. I have the impression that common ARM-based appliances today (like DLink's DNS-323 NAS, 500 Mhz Marvell 88F5181 proprietary Feroceon ARM) would have similar performace characteristic and was wondering whether they are truly feasible targets for opensolaris and zfs. That said, ARM is interesting because the chips just recently got a lot faster at the same power/price point, like 1GHz. using zfs on THAT might make more sense :D -- Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] two pools on boot disk?
I have a small system that is going to be a file server. It has two disks. I'd like just one pool for data. Is it possible to create two pools on the boot disk, and then add the second disk to the second pool? The result would be a single small pool for root, and a second pool containing the rest of that disk plus the second disk? The installer seems to want to use the whole disk for the root pool. Is there a way to change that? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] how to do backup
I have a USB disk, to which I want to do a backup. I've used send | receive. It works fine until I try to reboot. At that point the system fails to come up because the backup copy is set to be mounted at the original location so the system tries to mount two different things the same place. I guess I can have the script set mountpoint=none, but I'd think there would be a better approach. -- 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] how to do backup
On 20/06/2009, at 9:55 PM, Charles Hedrick wrote: I have a USB disk, to which I want to do a backup. I've used send | receive. It works fine until I try to reboot. At that point the system fails to come up because the backup copy is set to be mounted at the original location so the system tries to mount two different things the same place. I guess I can have the script set mountpoint=none, but I'd think there would be a better approach. Would a zpool export $backup_pool do the trick? (and consequently, you import the USB zpool before you start your backups? cheers, James ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] two pools on boot disk?
Hi Charles, Works fine. I did just that with my home system. I have 2x .5 TB disks which I didn't want to dedicate to rpool, and I wanted to create a second pool on those disks which could be expanded. I set up the rpool to be 100GB and that left me with a 400GB partition to make into an extended pool (xpool). There are probably some down-sides to doing this, but I have yet to come across them at this point. The reason I did this is to get around the limitation on rpool which restricts it to being simple mirrors which cannot be added to in a striped configuration. After that was set up I attached 2x 1 TB disks to the extended pool in a mirrored configuration. Check out my blog entry which explains exactly how to do this. The system I used in the demo is inside VirtualBox, but I have real hardware running in the configuration I mention. Using VirtualBox, I worked out the finer bits, before trying it out on my live machine. http://www.kamiogi.net/Kamiogi/Frame_Dragging/Entries/2009/5/10_OpenSolaris_Disk_Partitioning_and_the_Free_Hog.html One really interesting bit is how easily it is to make the disk in a pool bigger by doing a zpool replace on the device. It couldn't have been any easier with ZFS. I've even done a fresh install on this configuration just recently, and other than being exposed for a bit while I broke the mirrors to install a fresh copy of the OS, everything worked out alright. A few snags with namespace collisions when I re-imported the original rpool, but I'd already seen those before and wrote about them in another blog entry. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know. Cheers, Mike Mike --- Michael Sullivan michael.p.sulli...@me.com Japan Mobile: +81-80-3202-2599 US Phone: +1-561-283-2034 On 20 Jun 2009, at 20:44 , Charles Hedrick wrote: I have a small system that is going to be a file server. It has two disks. I'd like just one pool for data. Is it possible to create two pools on the boot disk, and then add the second disk to the second pool? The result would be a single small pool for root, and a second pool containing the rest of that disk plus the second disk? The installer seems to want to use the whole disk for the root pool. Is there a way to change that? -- 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] Replacing a failed drive
Great, thanks a lot Jeff. Cheers, Simon -- 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] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
Hi, Miles! Hope, weather is fine at your place. :-) On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: I understood Bogdan's post was a trap: ``provide bug numbers. Oh, they're fixed? nothing to see here then. no bugs? nothing to see here then.'' Would be great if you do not put a words in my mouth, please. All what I wanted to say (not to you, but to everyone, including myself): we have to be constructive and make common sense (which is not so common, unfortunately). Otherwise I am not sure we are welcomed here. Does this mean ZFS was not broken before those bugs were filed? Does this mean ZFS has no more bugs? Does this mean that we have stop using it? Was flame throwing dragons real? Is there a life on a Mars?.. :) Just kidding, never mind. :-) Also, as I said elsewhere, there's a barrier controlled by Sun to getting bugs accepted. Looks like you're new here. :-) E.g. there is a list very nasty bugs in Sun Java that has been filled in 2006 or earlier and lots of people suffering (including me) now, in 2009. But hey, not our job to cry and FUD around, I think. How about this scenario: either let's find workaround (and provide on the same bugreport) or, if it is so critical (and Sun rejected it), let's make a nice PDF with exploit sources or step-by-step instruction how to crash your system down to italian spaghetti and publish on a Slashdot :-) to let good guys find the rest how to kill solarises in two seconds. Then I am 100.0% sure Sun will patch it just right immediately. It is exaggerated, but still do you like it? But instead to do this way, somewhat Slashdot folks more just talks vague blah-blah-blah (mostly being modded insightful: 5 or interesting: 5, while is a just a troll or FUD) rather then doing something really useful. I am pretty much sure, if there will be graphic comparisons with a source code on a Phoronix or similar resources like FAT32 seriously beats ZFS in stability or How to DoS your ZFS from Google Android or Linux's ext2 is quince faster than ZFS — then this would add more adrenaline to Sun's folks fixing it. However... there are only Slashdot talks that are nothing more than just a Slashdot talks. I understand you and other Slashdot folks had some problems. But I hadn't, including lots of other people that ZFS works for them just fine. Thus it is even/even. :-P HTH. No, it does not. Just yet another e-mail posting that does not really helps fixing bugs. :-) I think a better question would be: what kind of tests would be most promising for turning some subclass of these lost pools reported on the mailing list into an actionable bug? my first bet would be writing tools that test for ignored sync cache commands leading to lost writes, and apply them to the case when iSCSI targets are rebooted but the initiator isn't. I think in the process of writing the tool you'll immediately bump into a defect, because you'll realize there is no equivalent of a 'hard' iSCSI mount like there is in NFS. and there cannot be a strict equivalent to 'hard' mounts in iSCSI, because we want zpool redundancy to preserve availability when an iSCSI target goes away. I think the whole model is wrong somehow. Now this DOES make sense! :-) Actually, iSCSI has lots of various small issues that grows into serious problems, thus that needs to be brought up, clearly described and I am sure suggestions are welcome. If you want to help with stress-tests, then I can help you in this, I think. For example, here is very nice article of iSCSI setup for Time Machine. The article is also very nice academic example to let Slashdot folks learn once how to make sense writing docs, complains and reports: http://www.kamiogi.net/Kamiogi/Frame_Dragging/Entries/2009/5/25_OpenSolaris_ZFS_iSCSI_Time_Machine_in_20_Minutes_or_Less.html So go check it out, follow the steps and make the same. Then write some scripts that can bring it down, find why, find where is the problem, suggest solution and publish this in Sun's bugs database. If you do that — my applauds and respect. How this sounds to you? :-) -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mobo SATA migration to AOC-SAT2-MV8 SATA card
OK, thanks again Jeff. Cheers, Simon -- 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] Mobo SATA migration to AOC-SAT2-MV8 SATA card
OK, that should work then, as my boot drive is currently an old IDE drive, which I'm hoping to replace with a SATA SSD. -- 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] x4500 resilvering spare taking forever?
Also, b57 is about 2 years old and misses the improvements in performance, especially in scrub performance. -- richard Tomas Ögren wrote: On 19 June, 2009 - Joe Kearney sent me these 3,8K bytes: I've got a Thumper running snv_57 and a large ZFS pool. I recently noticed a drive throwing some read errors, so I did the right thing and zfs replaced it with a spare. Are you taking snapshots periodically? If so, you're using a build old enough to restart resilver/scrub whenever a snapshot is taken. There has also been some bug where 'zpool status' as root restarts resilver/scrub as well. Try as non-root. /Tomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mobo SATA migration to AOC-SAT2-MV8 SATA card
Working on the assumption that you are going to be adding more drives to your server, why not just add the new drives to the Supermicro controller and keep the existing pool (well vdev) where it is? That's not a bad idea. I just thought that the AOC-SAT2-MV8 has 2 more SATA ports than my mobo (M2N-SLI Deluxe), and so it gives me room for another 2 drives, as I would prefer to keep the *data* zpool running from a single SATA controller if possible, to help guarantee uniform consistent behaviour. Also, as the AOC-SAT2-MV8 has the same Marvell chipset as the Thumper, so I've read, it should be a rock-solid solution. Having said that, the existing on-motherboard SATA controller is powered by the NVidia MCP55 chipset as far as I recall (mobo: NVidia 570 SLI chipset), and I chose this as some Sun workstations also used it and so it seemed to be supported. Mirrored BOOT: As an aside, my idea is to add 2 SSD drives as boot drives so I have a mirrored ZFS boot environment (named rpool, right?) within OpenSolaris 2009.06, but I need to read up a bit, as this may not even be possible right now, and I might need to just use a single SSD as a boot drive now... My idea would be to keep the boot SSD drive(s) powered by the exsisting motherboard SATA controller, and move the existing data pool onto the AOC-SAT2-MV8. AOC-SAT2-MV8 or AOC-USAS-L8i ?: I have to see if the AOC-SAT2-MV8 will work on the M2N-SLI Deluxe motherboard. I know that the mobo doesn't have PCI-X slots so I won't be able to run it at full speed, but I seem to remember people saying that it will work in 32-bit mode, a bit slower, from a PCI Express 2.0 slot... but I need to check this. From the supermicro site for the AOC-SAT2-MV8, I see that they don't list Solaris in the list of supported OSes, so I suppose the drivers for this card/chipset are made by Sun? One last point is that I've seen some people say that a possibly better card than the AOC-SAT2-MV8 is the AOC-USAS-L8i, which uses PCIe. I have to check with compatibility with this mobo though as it might not have PCIe. Just checked Asus's page for the M2N-SLI Deluxe mobo and it shows that it has the following expansion slots: 2 x PCI Express x16 slot at x16, x8 speed Support NVIDIA®SLI™ technology (both at x8 mode) 2 x PCI Express x1 3 x PCI 2.2 So it looks like running the AOC-USAS-L8i in one of the PCI Express x16 slots might be a possibility too. Any tips/advice greatfully received :) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zpool iostat and iostat discrepancy
Hi, Does anyone know the difference between zpool iostat and iostat? dd if=/dev/zero of=/test/test1/trash count=1 bs=1024k;sync pool only shows 236K IO and 13 write ops. whereas iostat shows a correctly meg of activity. zpool iostat -v test 5 capacity operationsbandwidth pool used avail read write read write -- - - - - - - test1.14M 100G 0 13 0 236K c8t60060E800475F50075F50525d0 182K 25.0G 0 4 0 36.8K c8t60060E800475F50075F50526d0 428K 25.0G 0 4 0 87.7K c8t60060E800475F50075F50540d0 558K 50.0G 0 4 0 111K -- - - - - - - iostat -xnz [devices] 5 extended device statistics r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device 2.46.06.8 88.2 0.0 0.00.01.0 0 0 c8t60060E800475F50075F50540d0 2.45.46.8 37.0 0.0 0.00.00.9 0 0 c8t60060E800475F50075F50526d0 2.45.06.8 112.0 0.0 0.00.00.9 0 0 c8t60060E800475F50075F50525d0 dtrace also concurs with iostat device bytes IOPS == /devices/scsi_vhci/s...@g60060e800475f50075f50525:a 224416 35 /devices/scsi_vhci/s...@g60060e800475f50075f50526:a 486560 37 /devices/scsi_vhci/s...@g60060e800475f50075f50540:a 608416 33 Thanks -- 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] recover data after zpool create
Thank you ! This is exactly what I was looking for and although this is zfs (not a Windows FAT) the time it takes to create a new pool (instantaneous) means all data is still there and only the table of contents was maybe erased. as unix directories are files, I suspect even the old structure may be available. it just created a new file for the new pool. will read the zfs docs and report in this thread what I find out. -- 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] zpool iostat and iostat discrepancy
On 06/20/09 11:14, tester wrote: Hi, Does anyone know the difference between zpool iostat and iostat? dd if=/dev/zero of=/test/test1/trash count=1 bs=1024k;sync pool only shows 236K IO and 13 write ops. whereas iostat shows a correctly meg of activity. The zfs numbers are per second as well. So 236K * 5 = 1180K zpool iostat -v test 1 would make this clearer. The iostat output below also shows 237K (88+37+112) being written per second. I'm not sure why any reads occurred though. When I did a quick experiment there were no reads. Enabling compression gives much better numbers when writing zeros! Neil. zpool iostat -v test 5 capacity operationsbandwidth pool used avail read write read write -- - - - - - - test1.14M 100G 0 13 0 236K c8t60060E800475F50075F50525d0 182K 25.0G 0 4 0 36.8K c8t60060E800475F50075F50526d0 428K 25.0G 0 4 0 87.7K c8t60060E800475F50075F50540d0 558K 50.0G 0 4 0 111K -- - - - - - - iostat -xnz [devices] 5 extended device statistics r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device 2.46.06.8 88.2 0.0 0.00.01.0 0 0 c8t60060E800475F50075F50540d0 2.45.46.8 37.0 0.0 0.00.00.9 0 0 c8t60060E800475F50075F50526d0 2.45.06.8 112.0 0.0 0.00.00.9 0 0 c8t60060E800475F50075F50525d0 dtrace also concurs with iostat device bytes IOPS == /devices/scsi_vhci/s...@g60060e800475f50075f50525:a 224416 35 /devices/scsi_vhci/s...@g60060e800475f50075f50526:a 486560 37 /devices/scsi_vhci/s...@g60060e800475f50075f50540:a 608416 33 Thanks ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool iostat and iostat discrepancy
Neil, Thanks. That makes sense. May be man page for zpool can say that it is a rate as iostat man page does. I think reads are from the zpool iostat command itself. zpool iostat doesn't capture that. Thanks -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ACL not being inherited correctly
[I did post this in NFS, but I think it should be here] I am playing with ACL on snv_114 (and Storage 7110) system and I have noticed that strange things are happing to ACL's or am I doing something wrong. When you create a new sub-directory or file the ACL's seem to be incorrect. # zfs create rpool/export/home/andrew # zfs set aclinherit=passthrough rpool/export/home/andrew # zfs set aclmode=passthrough rpool/export/home/andrew # chown andrew:staff /export/home/andrew # chmod A+user:oxygen:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:allow /export/home/andrew # ls -ldV /export/home/andrew drwxr-xr-x+ 3 andrew staff 3 Jun 19 17:09 /export/home/andrew user:oxygen:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:allow owner@:--:---:deny owner@:rwxp---A-W-Co-:---:allow group@:-w-p--:---:deny group@:r-x---:---:allow everyone@:-w-p---A-W-Co-:---:deny everyone@:r-x---a-R-c--s:---:allow # mkdir /export/home/andrew/foo # ls -ldV /export/home/andrew/foo drwxr-xr-x+ 2 andrew staff 2 Jun 19 17:09 /export/home/andrew/foo user:oxygen:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fdi---I:allow Altered user:oxygen:rwxpdDaARWcCos:--I:allow NEW owner@:--:---:deny owner@:rwxp---A-W-Co-:---:allow group@:-w-p--:---:deny group@:r-x---:---:allow everyone@:-w-p---A-W-Co-:---:deny everyone@:r-x---a-R-c--s:---:allow Andrew ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] how to destroy a pool by id?
Over the course of multiple OpenSolaris installs , I first created a pool called "tank" and then, later and resusing some of the same drives, I created another pool called tank. I can `zpool export tank`, but when I `zpool import tank`, I get: bash-3.2# zpool import tank cannot import 'tank': more than one matching pool import by numeric ID instead Then, using just `zpool import` I see the IDs: bash-3.2# zpool import pool: tank id: 15608629750614119537 state: ONLINE action: The pool can be imported using its name or numeric identifier. config: tank ONLINE raidz2 ONLINE c3t0d0 ONLINE c3t4d0 ONLINE c4t0d0 ONLINE c4t4d0 ONLINE c5t0d0 ONLINE c5t4d0 ONLINE raidz2 ONLINE c3t1d0 ONLINE c3t5d0 ONLINE c4t1d0 ONLINE c4t5d0 ONLINE c5t1d0 ONLINE c5t5d0 ONLINE pool: tank id: 3280066346390919920 state: ONLINE status: The pool was last accessed by another system. action: The pool can be imported using its name or numeric identifier and the '-f' flag. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-EY config: tank ONLINE raidz2 ONLINE c4t1d0p0 ONLINE c3t1d0p0 ONLINE c4t4d0p0 ONLINE c3t4d0p0 ONLINE c3t5d0p0 ONLINE c3t0d0p0 ONLINE How can I destroy the pool 3280066346390919920 so I do have to specify the ID to import tank in the future? Thanks, kent ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to destroy a pool by id?
Hi Kent, This is what I do in similar situations: 1. Import the pool to be destroyed by using the ID. In your case, like this: # zpool import 3280066346390919920 If tank already exists you can also rename it: # zpool import 3280066346390919920 tank2 Then destroy it: # zpool destroy tank2 I wish we had a zpool destroy option like this: # zpool destroy -really_dead tank2 Cindy - Original Message - From: Kent Watsen k...@watsen.net Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009 3:02 pm Subject: [zfs-discuss] how to destroy a pool by id? To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Over the course of multiple OpenSolaris installs , I first created a pool called tank and then, later and resusing some of the same drives, I created another pool called tank. I can `zpool export tank`, but when I `zpool import tank`, I get: bash-3.2# zpool import tank cannot import 'tank': more than one matching pool import by numeric ID instead Then, using just `zpool import` I see the IDs: bash-3.2# zpool import pool: tank id: 15608629750614119537 state: ONLINE action: The pool can be imported using its name or numeric identifier. config: tank ONLINE raidz2 ONLINE c3t0d0 ONLINE c3t4d0 ONLINE c4t0d0 ONLINE c4t4d0 ONLINE c5t0d0 ONLINE c5t4d0 ONLINE raidz2 ONLINE c3t1d0 ONLINE c3t5d0 ONLINE c4t1d0 ONLINE c4t5d0 ONLINE c5t1d0 ONLINE c5t5d0 ONLINE pool: tank id: 3280066346390919920 state: ONLINE status: The pool was last accessed by another system. action: The pool can be imported using its name or numeric identifier and the '-f' flag. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-EY config: tank ONLINE raidz2 ONLINE c4t1d0p0 ONLINE c3t1d0p0 ONLINE c4t4d0p0 ONLINE c3t4d0p0 ONLINE c3t5d0p0 ONLINE c3t0d0p0 ONLINE How can I destroy the pool 3280066346390919920 so I do have to specify the ID to import tank in the future? Thanks, kent ___ 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] ACL not being inherited correctly
Andrew Watkins wrote: [I did post this in NFS, but I think it should be here] I am playing with ACL on snv_114 (and Storage 7110) system and I have noticed that strange things are happing to ACL's or am I doing something wrong. When you create a new sub-directory or file the ACL's seem to be incorrect. Its actually doing exactly what its suppose to do. See below for explanation. # zfs create rpool/export/home/andrew # zfs set aclinherit=passthrough rpool/export/home/andrew # zfs set aclmode=passthrough rpool/export/home/andrew # chown andrew:staff /export/home/andrew # chmod A+user:oxygen:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:allow /export/home/andrew # ls -ldV /export/home/andrew drwxr-xr-x+ 3 andrew staff 3 Jun 19 17:09 /export/home/andrew user:oxygen:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:allow owner@:--:---:deny owner@:rwxp---A-W-Co-:---:allow group@:-w-p--:---:deny group@:r-x---:---:allow everyone@:-w-p---A-W-Co-:---:deny everyone@:r-x---a-R-c--s:---:allow # mkdir /export/home/andrew/foo # ls -ldV /export/home/andrew/foo drwxr-xr-x+ 2 andrew staff 2 Jun 19 17:09 /export/home/andrew/foo user:oxygen:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fdi---I:allow Altered The entry with the inheritance flags of fdi is an inherit only ACE which does NOT affect access control and is used for future propagation to children of the new directory. This is done since chmod(2) *may* under some situations alter/reduce the permission(s) of ACEs that affect access control. A chmod(2) operation never alters inherit only ACEs. This then allows future directories/files to always inherit the same ACL as its parent, or parents parent and so on. user:oxygen:rwxpdDaARWcCos:--I:allow NEW The I indicates the ACE was inherited. This is the ACE that will used during access control. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to destroy a pool by id?
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Cindy Swearingen wrote: I wish we had a zpool destroy option like this: # zpool destroy -really_dead tank2 Cindy, The moment we implemented such a thing, there would be a rash of requests saying: a) I just destroyed my pool with -really_dead - how can I get my data back??! b) I was able to recover my data from -really_dead - can we have -ultra-nuke please? -- Andre van Eyssen. mail: an...@purplecow.org jabber: an...@interact.purplecow.org purplecow.org: UNIX for the masses http://www2.purplecow.org purplecow.org: PCOWpix http://pix.purplecow.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
