Re: [zfs-discuss] Recovering an array on Mac
So, does anybody have an approach to recovering this filesystem? Is there a way to relabel the drives so that ZFS will recognize them, without losing the data? Thanks, Lee On Jul 5, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Lee Fyock wrote: Hi-- Here's the scoop, in probably too much detail: I'm a sucker for new filesystems and new tech in general. For you old-time Mac people, I installed Sequoia when it was first seeded, and had to reformat my drive several times as it grew to the final release. I flipped the journaled flag before I even knew what it meant. I installed the pre-Leopard ZFS seed and have been using it for, what, a year? So, I started with two 500 GB drives in a single pool, not mirrored. I bought a 1 TB drive and added it to the pool. I bought another 1 TB drive, and finally had enough storage (~1.5 TB) to mirror my disks and be all set for the foreseeable future. In order to migrate my data from a single pool of 500 GB + 500 GB + 1 TB to a mirrored 500GB/500GB + 1TB/1TB pool, I was planning on doing this: 1) Copy everything to the New 1 TB drive (slopping what wouldn't fit onto another spare drive) 2) Upgrade to the latest ZFS for Mac release (117) 3) Destroy the existing pool 4) Create a pool with the two 500 GB drives 5) Copy everything from the New drive to the 500 GB x 2 pool 6) Create a mirrored pool with the two 1 TB drives 7) Copy everything from the 500 GB x 2 pool to the mirrored 1 TB pool 8) Destroy the 500 GB x 2 pool, and create it as a 500GB/500GB mirrored pair and add it to the 1TB/1TB pool During step 7, while I was at work, the power failed at home, apparently long enough to drain my UPS. When I rebooted my machine, both pools refused to mount: the 500+500 pool and the 1TB/1TB mirrored pool. Just about all my data is lost. This was my media server containing my DVD rips, so everything is recoverable in that I can re-rip 1+TB, but I'd rather not. diskutil list says this: /dev/disk1 #: TYPE NAMESIZE IDENTIFIER 0: FDisk_partition_scheme*465.8 Gi disk1 1:465.8 Gi disk1s1 /dev/disk2 #: TYPE NAMESIZE IDENTIFIER 0: FDisk_partition_scheme*465.8 Gi disk2 1:465.8 Gi disk2s1 /dev/disk3 #: TYPE NAMESIZE IDENTIFIER 0: FDisk_partition_scheme*931.5 Gi disk3 1:931.5 Gi disk3s1 /dev/disk4 #: TYPE NAMESIZE IDENTIFIER 0: FDisk_partition_scheme*931.5 Gi disk4 1:931.5 Gi disk4s1 During step 2, I created the pools using zpool create media mirror / dev/disk3 /dev/disk4 then zpool upgrade, since I got warnings that the filesystem version was out of date. Note that I created zpools referring to the entire disk, not just a slice. I had labelled the disks using diskutil partitiondisk /dev/disk2 GPTFormat ZFS %noformat% 100% but now the disks indicate that they're FDisk_partition_scheme. Googling for FDisk_partition_scheme yields http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-March/000240.html , among other things, but no hint of where to go from here. zpool import -D reports no pools available to import. All of this is on a Mac Mini running Mac OS X 10.5.3, BTW. I own Parallels if using an OpenSolaris build would be of use. So, is the data recoverable? Thanks! Lee ___ 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
[zfs-discuss] Recovering an array on Mac
Hi-- Here's the scoop, in probably too much detail: I'm a sucker for new filesystems and new tech in general. For you old- time Mac people, I installed Sequoia when it was first seeded, and had to reformat my drive several times as it grew to the final release. I flipped the journaled flag before I even knew what it meant. I installed the pre-Leopard ZFS seed and have been using it for, what, a year? So, I started with two 500 GB drives in a single pool, not mirrored. I bought a 1 TB drive and added it to the pool. I bought another 1 TB drive, and finally had enough storage (~1.5 TB) to mirror my disks and be all set for the foreseeable future. In order to migrate my data from a single pool of 500 GB + 500 GB + 1 TB to a mirrored 500GB/500GB + 1TB/1TB pool, I was planning on doing this: 1) Copy everything to the New 1 TB drive (slopping what wouldn't fit onto another spare drive) 2) Upgrade to the latest ZFS for Mac release (117) 3) Destroy the existing pool 4) Create a pool with the two 500 GB drives 5) Copy everything from the New drive to the 500 GB x 2 pool 6) Create a mirrored pool with the two 1 TB drives 7) Copy everything from the 500 GB x 2 pool to the mirrored 1 TB pool 8) Destroy the 500 GB x 2 pool, and create it as a 500GB/500GB mirrored pair and add it to the 1TB/1TB pool During step 7, while I was at work, the power failed at home, apparently long enough to drain my UPS. When I rebooted my machine, both pools refused to mount: the 500+500 pool and the 1TB/1TB mirrored pool. Just about all my data is lost. This was my media server containing my DVD rips, so everything is recoverable in that I can re-rip 1+TB, but I'd rather not. diskutil list says this: /dev/disk1 #: TYPE NAMESIZE IDENTIFIER 0: FDisk_partition_scheme*465.8 Gi disk1 1:465.8 Gi disk1s1 /dev/disk2 #: TYPE NAMESIZE IDENTIFIER 0: FDisk_partition_scheme*465.8 Gi disk2 1:465.8 Gi disk2s1 /dev/disk3 #: TYPE NAMESIZE IDENTIFIER 0: FDisk_partition_scheme*931.5 Gi disk3 1:931.5 Gi disk3s1 /dev/disk4 #: TYPE NAMESIZE IDENTIFIER 0: FDisk_partition_scheme*931.5 Gi disk4 1:931.5 Gi disk4s1 During step 2, I created the pools using zpool create media mirror / dev/disk3 /dev/disk4 then zpool upgrade, since I got warnings that the filesystem version was out of date. Note that I created zpools referring to the entire disk, not just a slice. I had labelled the disks using diskutil partitiondisk /dev/disk2 GPTFormat ZFS %noformat% 100% but now the disks indicate that they're FDisk_partition_scheme. Googling for FDisk_partition_scheme yields http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-March/000240.html , among other things, but no hint of where to go from here. zpool import -D reports no pools available to import. All of this is on a Mac Mini running Mac OS X 10.5.3, BTW. I own Parallels if using an OpenSolaris build would be of use. So, is the data recoverable? Thanks! Lee ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X Leopard to use ZFS
Thanks, Chad. There's some debate in the Mac community about what the phrase the file system in Mac OS X means. Does that mean that machines that ship with Leopard will run on ZFS discs by default? Will ZFS be the default file system when initializing a new drive? IMHO, that seems unlikely, given that zfs boot is still an unreleased feature. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though. If there's anyone in the know, please feel free to speak up. :-) Thanks, Lee On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Rick Mann wrote: From Macintouch (http://macintouch.com/#other.2007.06.07): --- On stage Wednesday in Washington D.C., Sun Microsystems Inc. CEO Jonathan Schwartz revealed that his company's open-source ZFS file system will replace Apple's long-used HFS+ in Mac OS X 10.5, a.k.a. Leopard, when the new operating system ships this fall. This week, you'll see that Apple is announcing at their Worldwide Developers Conference that ZFS has become the file system in Mac OS X, said Schwartz. ZFS (Zettabyte File System), designed by Sun for its Solaris OS but licensed as open-source, is a 128-bit file storage system that features, among other things, pooled storage, which means that users simply plug in additional drives to add space, without worrying about such traditional storage parameters as volumes or partitions. [ZFS] eliminates volume management, it has extremely high performance It permits the failure of disk drives, crowed Schwartz during a presentation focused on Sun's new blade servers. --- We'll see next week what Steve announces at the WWDC keynote (which is not under NDA like the rest of the conference). I'll be there and try to remember to post what is said (though it will probably be in a billion other places as well) Chad ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Motley group of discs?
Cindy, Thanks so much for the response -- this is the first one that I consider an actual answer. :-) I'm still unclear on exactly what I end up with. I apologize in advance for my ignorance -- the ZFS admin guide assumes knowledge that I don't yet have. I assume that disk4 is a hot spare, so if one of the other disks die, it'll kick into active use. Is data immediately replicated from the other surviving disks to disk4? What usable capacity do I end up with? 160 GB (the smallest disk) * 3? Or less, because raidz has parity overhead? Or more, because that overhead can be stored on the larger disks? If I didn't need a hot spare, but instead could live with running out and buying a new drive to add on as soon as one fails, what configuration would I use then? Thanks! Lee On May 7, 2007, at 2:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Lee, You can decide whether you want to use ZFS for a root file system now. You can find this info here: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/boot/ Consider this setup for your other disks, which are: 250, 200 and 160 GB drives, and an external USB 2.0 600 GB drive 250GB = disk1 200GB = disk2 160GB = disk3 600GB = disk4 (spare) I include a spare in this setup because you want to be protected from a disk failure. Since the replacement disk must be equal to or larger than the disk to replace, I think this is best (safest) solution. zpool create pool raidz disk1 disk2 disk3 spare disk4 This setup provides less capacity but better safety, which is probably important for older disks. Because of the spare disk requirement (must be equal to or larger in size), I don't see a better arrangement. I hope someone else can provide one. Your questions remind me that I need to provide add'l information about the current ZFS spare feature... Thanks, Cindy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Motley group of discs?
Hi-- I'm looking forward to using zfs on my Mac at some point. My desktop server (a dual-1.25GHz G4) has a motley collection of discs that has accreted over the years: internal EIDE 320GB (boot drive), internal 250, 200 and 160 GB drives, and an external USB 2.0 600 GB drive. My guess is that I won't be able to use zfs on the boot 320 GB drive, at least this year. I'd like to favor available space over performance, and be able to swap out a failed drive without losing any data. So, what's the best zfs configuration in this situation? The FAQs I've read are usually related to matched (in size) drives. Thanks! Lee ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Motley group of discs?
I didn't mean to kick up a fuss. I'm reasonably zfs-savvy in that I've been reading about it for a year or more. I'm a Mac developer and general geek; I'm excited about zfs because it's new and cool. At some point I'll replace my old desktop machine with something new and better -- probably when Unreal Tournament 2007 arrives, necessitating a faster processor and better graphics card. :-) In the mean time, I'd like to hang out with the system and drives I have. As mike said, my understanding is that zfs would provide error correction until a disc fails, if the setup is properly done. That's the setup for which I'm requesting a recommendation. I won't even be able to use zfs until Leopard arrives in October, but I want to bone up so I'll be ready when it does. Money isn't an issue here, but neither is creating an optimal zfs system. I'm curious what the right zfs configuration is for the system I have. Thanks! Lee On May 4, 2007, at 7:41 PM, Al Hopper wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2007, mike wrote: Isn't the benefit of ZFS that it will allow you to use even the most unreliable risks and be able to inform you when they are attempting to corrupt your data? Yes - I won't argue that ZFS can be applied exactly as you state above. However, ZFS is no substitute for bad practices that include: - not proactively replacing mechanical components *before* they fail - not having maintenance policies in place To me it sounds like he is a SOHO user; may not have a lot of funds to go out and swap hardware on a whim like a company might. You may be right - but you're simply guessing. The original system probably cost around $3k (?? I could be wrong). So what I'm suggesting, that he spend ~ $300, represents ~ 10% of the original system cost. Since the OP asked for advice, I've given him the best advice I can come up with. I've also encountered many users who don't keep up to date with current computer hardware capabilities and pricing, and who may be completely unaware that you can purchase two 500Gb disk drives, with a 5 year warranty, for around $300. And possibly less if you checkout Frys weekly bargin disk drive offers. Now consider the total cost of ownership solution I recommended: 500 gigabytes of storage, coupled with ZFS, which translates into $60/ year for 5 years of error free storage capability. Can life get any better than this! :) Now contrast my recommendation with what you propose - re-targeting a bunch of older disk drives, which incorporate older, less reliable technology, with a view to saving money. How much is your time worth? How many hours will it take you to recover from a failure of one of these older drives and the accompying increased risk of data loss. If the ZFS savvy OP comes back to this list and says Als' solution is too expensive I'm perfectly willing to rethink my recommendation. For now, I believe it to be the best recommendation I can devise. ZFS in my opinion is well-suited for those without access to continuously upgraded hardware and expensive fault-tolerant hardware-based solutions. It is ideal for home installations where people think their data is safe until the disk completely dies. I don't know how many non-savvy people I have helped over the years who has no data protection, and ZFS could offer them at least some fault-tolerance and protection against corruption, and could help notify them when it is time to shut off their computer and call someone to come swap out their disk and move their data to a fresh drive before it's completely failed... Agreed. One piece-of-the-puzzle that's missing right now IMHO, is a reliable, two port, low-cost PCI SATA disk controller. A solid/de-bugged 3124 driver would go a long way to ZFS-enabling a bunch of cost- constrained ZFS users. And, while I'm working this hardware wish list, please ... a PCI- Express based version of the SuperMicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 8-port Marvell based disk controller card. Sun ... are you listening? - mike On 5/4/07, Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2007, Lee Fyock wrote: Hi-- I'm looking forward to using zfs on my Mac at some point. My desktop server (a dual-1.25GHz G4) has a motley collection of discs that has accreted over the years: internal EIDE 320GB (boot drive), internal 250, 200 and 160 GB drives, and an external USB 2.0 600 GB drive. My guess is that I won't be able to use zfs on the boot 320 GB drive, at least this year. I'd like to favor available space over performance, and be able to swap out a failed drive without losing any data. So, what's the best zfs configuration in this situation? The FAQs I've read are usually related to matched (in size) drives. Seriously, the best solution here is to discard any drive that is 3 years (or more) old[1] and purchase two new SATA 500Gb drives. Setup the new drives as a zfs mirror. Being a believer in diversity, I'd recommend
