I think we (the ZFS team) all generally agree with you. The current
nevada code is much better at handling device failures than it was
just a few months ago. And there are additional changes that were
made for the FishWorks (a.k.a. Amber Road, a.k.a. Sun Storage 7000)
product line that will make
Hey Jeff,
Good to hear there's work going on to address this.
What did you guys think to my idea of ZFS supporting a waiting for a
response status for disks as an interim solution that allows the pool
to continue operation while it's waiting for FMA or the driver to
fault the drive?
I do
Hello Matt,
you wrote about panic in u3 u4:
These stack traces look like 6569719 (fixed in s10u5).
Then I suppose it's also fixed by 127127-11 because that patch mentions 6569719.
According to my zfs-hardness-test script this is true.
Instead of crashing with an panic, with 127127-11 these
PS. I think this also gives you a chance at making the whole problem
much simpler. Instead of the hard question of is this faulty,
you're just trying to say is it working right now?.
In fact, I'm now wondering if the waiting for a response flag
wouldn't be better as possibly faulty. That way
No, I count that as doesn't return data ok, but my post wasn't very
clear at all on that.
Even for a write, the disk will return something to indicate that the
action has completed, so that can also be covered by just those two
scenarios, and right now ZFS can lock the whole pool up if it's
My idea is simply to allow the pool to continue operation while
waiting for the drive to fault, even if that's a faulty write. It
just means that the rest of the operations (reads and writes) can keep
working for the minute (or three) it takes for FMA and the rest of the
chain to flag a device
My justification for this is that it seems to me that you can split
disk behavior into two states:
- returns data ok
- doesn't return data ok
I think you're missing won't write.
There's clearly a difference between get data from a different copy
which you can fix but retrying data to a
Hmm, true. The idea doesn't work so well if you have a lot of writes,
so there needs to be some thought as to how you handle that.
Just thinking aloud, could the missing writes be written to the log
file on the rest of the pool? Or temporarily stored somewhere else in
the pool? Would it be an
marko b wrote:
Let me see if I'm understanding your suggestion. A stripe of mirrored pairs.
I can grow by resizing an existing mirrored pair, or just attaching
another mirrored pair to the stripe?
Both adding an additional mirrored pair to the stripe and by replacing
the sides of the mirror
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lori Alt wrote:
The SXCE code base really only supports BEs that are
either all in one dataset, or have everything but /var in
one dataset and /var in its own dataset (the reason for
supporting a separate /var is to be able to set a set a
quota
On 25-Nov-08, at 5:10 AM, Ross Smith wrote:
Hey Jeff,
Good to hear there's work going on to address this.
What did you guys think to my idea of ZFS supporting a waiting for a
response status for disks as an interim solution that allows the pool
to continue operation while it's waiting for
Anyway I did not get any help but I was able to figure it out.
[12:58:08] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /root zpool status mypooladas
pool: mypooladas
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices could not be used because the label is missing or
invalid. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool
The shortcomings of timeouts have been discussed on this list before. How do
you tell the difference between a drive that is dead and a path that is just
highly loaded?
A path that is dead is either returning bad data, or isn't returning
anything. A highly loaded path is by definition reading
My root drive is ufs. I have corrupted my zpool which is on a different drive
than the root drive.
My system paniced and now it core dumps when it boots up and hits zfs start. I
have a alt root drive that can boot the system up with but how can I disable
zfs from starting on a different drive?
Boot from the other root drive, mount up the bad one at /mnt. Then:
# mv /mnt/etc/zfs/zpool.cache /mnt/etc/zpool.cache.bad
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Mike DeMarco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My root drive is ufs. I have corrupted my zpool which is on a different drive
than the root
Mike DeMarco wrote:
My root drive is ufs. I have corrupted my zpool which is on a different drive
than the root drive.
My system paniced and now it core dumps when it boots up and hits zfs start.
I have a alt root drive that can boot the system up with but how can I
disable zfs from
My non-redundant rpool (2 replacement disks have been ordered :-) is
reporting errors:
canopus% pfexec zpool status -v rpool
pool: rpool
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
corruption. Applications may be affected.
action: Restore
Oh, and regarding the original post -- as several
readers correctly
surmised, we weren't faking anything, we just didn't
want to wait
for all the device timeouts. Because the disks were
on USB, which
is a hotplug-capable bus, unplugging the dead disk
generated an
interrupt that bypassed
Ross Smith wrote:
My justification for this is that it seems to me that you can split
disk behavior into two states:
- returns data ok
- doesn't return data ok
And for the state where it's not returning data, you can again split
that in two:
- returns wrong data
- doesn't return data
Boot from the other root drive, mount up the bad
one at /mnt. Then:
# mv /mnt/etc/zfs/zpool.cache
/mnt/etc/zpool.cache.bad
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Mike DeMarco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My root drive is ufs. I have corrupted my zpool
which is on a different drive than the
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Ross Smith wrote:
Good to hear there's work going on to address this.
What did you guys think to my idea of ZFS supporting a waiting for a
response status for disks as an interim solution that allows the pool
to continue operation while it's waiting for FMA or the driver
Scara Maccai wrote:
Oh, and regarding the original post -- as several
readers correctly
surmised, we weren't faking anything, we just didn't
want to wait
for all the device timeouts. Because the disks were
on USB, which
is a hotplug-capable bus, unplugging the dead disk
generated an
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:55:17AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My idea is simply to allow the pool to continue operation while
waiting for the drive to fault, even if that's a faulty write. It
just means that the rest of the operations (reads and writes) can keep
working for the minute
I disagree Bob, I think this is a very different function to that
which FMA provides.
As far as I know, FMA doesn't have access to the big picture of pool
configuration that ZFS has, so why shouldn't ZFS use that information
to increase the reliability of the pool while still using FMA to
handle
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Ross Smith wrote:
I disagree Bob, I think this is a very different function to that
which FMA provides.
As far as I know, FMA doesn't have access to the big picture of pool
configuration that ZFS has, so why shouldn't ZFS use that information
to increase the reliability
It's hard to tell exactly what you are asking for, but this sounds
similar to how ZFS already works. If ZFS decides that a device is
pathologically broken (as evidenced by vdev_probe() failure), it knows
that FMA will come back and diagnose the drive is faulty (becuase we
generate a probe_failure
Hi Ahmed
I'm part of the team that is working on such integration and snapshot
integration (and SRM) is definitely on the roadmap.
Right now, there is nothing official, but as other have mentioned, some
simple scripting wouldn't be too hard.
I like to use the Remote Command Line appliance and
On 11/23/08 12:14, Paweł Tęcza wrote:
As others here have said, just issue 'zfs list -t snapshot' if you
just want to see the snapshots, or 'zfs list -t all' to see both
filesystems and snapshots.
OK, I can use that, but my dreamed `zfs list` syntax is like below:
zfs list [all|snapshots]
I did a fresh install a week ago. Because of Time Slider / auto-snapshot
being installed, I have 15 pages of snapshots.
Malachi
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Paweł Tęcza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dnia 2008-11-23, nie o godzinie 13:41 +0530, Sanjeev Bagewadi pisze:
Thank your very much for
Will this be for Sun's xVM Server as well as for ESX?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Dnia 2008-11-25, wto o godzinie 10:16 -0800, Malachi de Ælfweald pisze:
I did a fresh install a week ago. Because of Time Slider /
auto-snapshot being installed, I have 15 pages of snapshots.
Malachi,
You only wrote that you have a lot of snapshots. You didn't wrote
whether you really need all
Dnia 2008-11-25, wto o godzinie 13:11 -0500, Richard Morris - Sun
Microsystems - Burlington United States pisze:
Pawel,
With http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6734907
zfs list -t all would be useful once snapshots are omitted by default,
the syntax of zfs list is very close to
I think you are missing the point. They are auto-generated due to having
Time Slider setup. It does auto-snapshots of the entire drive every hour. It
removes old ones when the drive reaches 80% utilization.
http://blogs.sun.com/erwann/entry/zfs_on_the_desktop_zfs
Hope that helps,
Malachi
On
Dnia 2008-11-25, wto o godzinie 13:46 -0800, Malachi de Ælfweald pisze:
I think you are missing the point. They are auto-generated due to
having Time Slider setup. It does auto-snapshots of the entire drive
every hour. It removes old ones when the drive reaches 80%
utilization.
Dnia 2008-11-25, wto o godzinie 23:16 +0100, Paweł Tęcza pisze:
Also I'm very curious whether I can configure Time Slider to taking
backup every 2 or 4 or 8 hours, for example.
Or set the max number of snapshots?
Pawel
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
I have RTFM'd through this list and a number of Sun docs at docs.sun
and can't find any information on how I might be able to write out 'hard
zeros' to the unused blocks on a ZFS. The reason I'd like to do this is
because if the storage (LUN/s) I'm providing to the ZFS is
thin-provisioned
Paweł Tęcza wrote:
Dnia 2008-11-25, wto o godzinie 23:16 +0100, Paweł Tęcza pisze:
Also I'm very curious whether I can configure Time Slider to taking
backup every 2 or 4 or 8 hours, for example.
Or set the max number of snapshots?
UTSL
On 25 November, 2008 - Dave Brown sent me these 0,8K bytes:
I have RTFM'd through this list and a number of Sun docs at docs.sun
and can't find any information on how I might be able to write out 'hard
zeros' to the unused blocks on a ZFS. The reason I'd like to do this is
because if
Solaris 10u4 x64 using included Samba 3.0.28
Samba is AD integrated, and I have a share configured as follows:
[crlib1]
comment = Creative Lib1
path = /pool/creative/lib1
read only = No
vfs objects = zfsacl
Paweł Tęcza wrote:
Dnia 2008-11-25, wto o godzinie 23:16 +0100, Paweł Tęcza pisze:
Also I'm very curious whether I can configure Time Slider to taking
backup every 2 or 4 or 8 hours, for example.
Or set the max number of snapshots?
Yes you can (though not in the time-slider gui yet).
Suppose that you have a SAN environment with a lot of LUNs. In the
normal course of events this means that 'zpool import' is very slow,
because it has to probe all of the LUNs all of the time.
In S10U6, the theoretical 'obvious' way to get around this for your
SAN filesystems seems to be to use
On 11/25/08 16:41, Paweł Tęcza wrote:
Dnia 2008-11-25, wto o godzinie 13:11 -0500, Richard Morris - Sun
Microsystems - Burlington United States pisze:
Pawel,
With http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6734907
zfs list -t all would be useful once snapshots are omitted by default,
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 06:34:47PM -0500, Richard Morris - Sun Microsystems -
Burlington United States wrote:
option to list all datasets. So 6734907 added -t all which produces the
same output as -t filesystem,volume,snapshot.
1.
43 matches
Mail list logo
