Hi dan,
Your problem regarding zpool add tank c1d1 got solved or not? If not i've
one solution ,Whenever you add any disk to the pool you have to give full
path of that disk, even if you are in current directory. So, could you try
it by giving full path of c1d1?..
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:38
On Dec 21, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Roman Naumenko ro...@naumenko.ca wrote:
On Dec 21, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Michael Herf
mbh...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone who's lost data this way: were you doing
weekly scrubs, or
did you find out about the simultaneous failures
after not touching
the bits for
Hi Ross,
What about old good raid10? It's a pretty
reasonable choice for
heavy loaded storages, isn't it?
I remember when I migrated raidz2 to 8xdrives
raid10 the application
administrators were just really happy with the new
access speed. (we
didn't use stripped raidz2
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Raid10 provides excellent performance and if performance is a priority then I
recommend it, but I was under the impression that resiliency was the
priority, as raidz2/raidz3 provide greater resiliency for a sacrifice in
performance.
Why are people
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Why are people talking about RAID-5, RAID-6, and
RAID-10 on this
list? This is the zfs-discuss list and zfs does not
do RAID-5,
RAID-6, or RAID-10.
Applying classic RAID terms to zfs is just plain
wrong and misleading
since zfs does not directly implement these
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Applying classic RAID terms to zfs is just plain
wrong and misleading since zfs does not directly implement these classic
RAID approaches
even though it re-uses some of the algorithms for data recovery.
Details do matter.
Bob
--
Bob
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Marty Scholes wrote:
That's not entirely true, is it?
* RAIDZ is RAID5 + checksum + COW
* RAIDZ2 is RAID6 + checksum + COW
* A stack of mirror vdevs is RAID10 + checksum + COW
These are layman's simplifications that no one here should be
comfortable with.
Zfs borrows
On 22.12.09 18:42, Roman Naumenko wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Applying classic RAID terms to zfs is just plain
wrong and misleading since zfs does not directly implement these classic RAID
approaches
even though it re-uses some of the algorithms for data recovery.
Details do
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Roman Naumenko wrote:
raid6 is raid6, not matter how you name it: raidz2, raid-dp, raid-ADG or
somehow else.
Sounds nice, but it's is just buzzwords.
It is true that many vendors like to make their storage array seem
special, but references to RAID6 when describing
Interesting discussion. I know the bias here is generally toward enterprise
users. I was wondering if the same recommendations hold for home users that are
generally more price sensitive. I'm currently running OpenSolaris on a system
with 12 drives. I had split them into 3 sets of 4 raidz1
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Marty Scholes wrote:
That's not entirely true, is it?
* RAIDZ is RAID5 + checksum + COW
* RAIDZ2 is RAID6 + checksum + COW
* A stack of mirror vdevs is RAID10 + checksum +
COW
These are layman's simplifications that no one here
should be
On 22-Dec-09, at 12:42 PM, Roman Naumenko wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Applying classic RAID terms to zfs is just plain
wrong and misleading since zfs does not directly implement these
classic RAID approaches
even though it re-uses some of the algorithms for data
On Dec 22, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 22-Dec-09, at 12:42 PM, Roman Naumenko wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Applying classic RAID terms to zfs is just plain
wrong and misleading since zfs does not directly implement these
classic RAID approaches
even though it
Hello,
I'm thinking about a setup that looks like this:
- 2 headnodes with FC connectivity (OpenSolaris)
- 2 backend FC srtorages (Disk Shelves with RAID Controllers presenting a huge
15 TB RAID5)
- 2 datacenters (distance 1 km with dark fibre)
- one headnode and one storage in each data
I have a raidz1 that I have been trying to recover. I am missing one disk due
to catastrophic mechanical failure, but the other disks are fully functional.
The problem is that I cannot import the zpool, despite all the disks being
present. Even with -f, zfs recovery mode set in the kernel
ttabbal:
If I understand correctly, raidz{1} is 1 drive protection and space is
(drives - 1) available. Raidz2 is 2 drive protection and space is (drives - 2)
etc. Same for raidz3 being 3 drive protection.
Everything I've seen you should stay around 6-9 drives for raidz, so don't
Can you post a zpool import -f for us to see?
One thing I ran into recently is that if the drives arrangement was changed
(like drives swapped) it can't recover. I moved an 8 drive array recently, and
didn't worry about the order of the drives. It could not be mounted without
reordering the
I am on different hardware, thus I cannot restore the drive configuration
exactly.
I have been able to shuffle and re-import disks in the past with different
zpools, even without an export. Does anybody have more experience with what
scenarios cause a failure to import with the disks being
galenz: I am on different hardware, thus I cannot restore the drive
configuration exactly.
Actually, you can learn most of it, if not all of it you need.
Do zpool import -f with no pool name and it should dump the issue with the
pool (what is making it fail.) If that doesn't contain
We have a server using Solaris 10. It's a pair of systems with a shared J4200,
with Solaris cluster. It works very nicely. Solaris cluster switches over
transparently.
However as an NFS server it is dog-slow. This is the usual synchronous write
problem. Setting zfs_disable fixes the problem.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, James Risner wrote:
I do consider RAID5 as 'Stripeset with an interleaved Parity',
so I don't agree with the strong objection in this thread by many
about the use of RAID5 to describe what raidz does. I don't think
many particularly care about the nuanced differences
risner wrote:
If I understand correctly, raidz{1} is 1 drive
protection and space is (drives - 1) available.
Raidz2 is 2 drive protection and space is (drives -
2) etc. Same for raidz3 being 3 drive protection.
Yes.
Everything I've seen you should stay around 6-9
drives for raidz, so
Everything I've seen you should stay around 6-9
drives for raidz, so don't do a raidz3 with 12
drives. Instead make two raidz3 with 6 drives each
(which is (6-3)*1.5 * 2 = 9 TB array.)
So the question becomes, why? If it's performance, I can live with lower IOPS
and max throughput. If it's
On 22-Dec-09, at 3:33 PM, James Risner wrote:
...
Joerg Moellenkamp:
I do consider RAID5 as 'Stripeset with an interleaved
Parity', so I don't agree with the strong objection in this thread
by many about the use of RAID5 to describe what raidz does. I
don't think many particularly
On Dec 22, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Galen wrote:
I am on different hardware, thus I cannot restore the drive
configuration exactly.
I have been able to shuffle and re-import disks in the past with
different zpools, even without an export. Does anybody have more
experience with what scenarios
We recently upgraded last week to OpenSolaris Development snv_128a and all
things went fine, zpool still works, etc. Our disks come off a Hitachi Disk
Array and we have 2 qLogic fiber cards in our server.
cfgadm -al use to report the cards and luxadm probe use to return all the
disks on the
On Dec 22, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Raid10 provides excellent performance and if performance is a
priority then I recommend it, but I was under the impression that
resiliency was the priority, as
Charles Hedrick wrote:
We have a server using Solaris 10. It's a pair of systems with a shared J4200,
with Solaris cluster. It works very nicely. Solaris cluster switches over
transparently.
However as an NFS server it is dog-slow. This is the usual synchronous write
problem. Setting
Thanks. That's what I was looking for.
Yikes! I hadn't realized how expensive the Zeus is.
We're using Solaris cluster, so if the system goes down, the other one takes
over. That means that if the ZIL is on a local disk, we lose it in a crash.
Might as well just set zil_disable (something I'm
It turns out that our storage is currently being used for
* backups of various kinds, run daily by cron jobs
* saving old log files from our production application
* saving old versions of java files from our production application
Most of the usage is write-only, and a fair amount of it
On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Charles Hedrick hedr...@rutgers.edu
wrote:
It turns out that our storage is currently being used for
* backups of various kinds, run daily by cron jobs
* saving old log files from our production application
* saving old versions of java files from our production
Never seen this before:
# pkg image-update
DOWNLOAD PKGS FILESXFER (MB)
Completed 2/2 194/19464.0/64.0
PHASEACTIONS
Removal Phase4/4
On Dec 22, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Charles Hedrick wrote:
It turns out that our storage is currently being used for
* backups of various kinds, run daily by cron jobs
* saving old log files from our production application
* saving old versions of java files from our production application
Most of
On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:58 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 22, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Charles Hedrick wrote:
It turns out that our storage is currently being used for
* backups of various kinds, run daily by cron jobs
* saving old log files from our production
I've been playing around with zones on NFS a bit and have run into
what looks to be a pretty bad snag - ZFS keeps seeing read and/or
checksum errors. This exists with S10u8 and OpenSolaris dev build
snv_129. This is likely a blocker for anything thinking of
implementing parts of Ed's Zones on
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
I think zil_disable may actually make sense.
How about a zil comprised of two mirrored iSCSI vdevs formed from a SSD on
each box?
I would not have believed that this is a useful idea except that I
have seen IOPS offload to a server on the network
On Dec 22, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
I think zil_disable may actually make sense.
How about a zil comprised of two mirrored iSCSI vdevs formed from a
SSD on each box?
I would not have believed that this
I have a machine connected to an HDS with a corrupted pool.
While running zpool import -nfFX on the pool, it spawns a large number of
zfsdle processes and eventually the machine hangs for 20-30 seconds, spits out
error messages
zfs: [ID 346414 kern.warning] WARNING: Couldn't create process
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Mike Gerdts mger...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been playing around with zones on NFS a bit and have run into
what looks to be a pretty bad snag - ZFS keeps seeing read and/or
checksum errors. This exists with S10u8 and OpenSolaris dev build
snv_129. This is likely
Anyone seen this odd message ? It seems a tad counter intuitive.
# uname -a
SunOS gamma 5.11 snv_126 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-480R
# cat /etc/release
Solaris Express Community Edition snv_126 SPARC
Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
I hate it when I do that .. 30 secs later I see -m mountpoint which is a
Property but not specified as -o foo-bar format.
erk
# ptime zpool create -f -o autoreplace=on -o version=10 \
-m legacy \
fibre01 mirror c2t0d0 c3t16d0 \
mirror c2t1d0 c3t17d0 \
mirror c2t2d0 c3t18d0 \
mirror c2t3d0
Something over 8000 sounds vaguely like the default maximum process count.
What does 'ulimit -a' show?
I don't know why you're seeing so many zfsdle processes, though — sounds like a
bug to me.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
bash-4.0# ulimit -a
core file size (blocks, -c) unlimited
data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited
file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
open files (-n) 256
pipe size(512 bytes, -p) 10
stack size (kbytes, -s) 10240
cpu time
I'm surprised at the number as well.
Running it again, I'm seeing it jump fairly high just before the fork errors:
bash-4.0# ps -ef | grep zfsdle | wc -l
20930
(the next run of ps failed due to the fork error).
So maybe it is running out of processes.
ZFS file data from ::memstat just went
On December 21, 2009 10:45:29 PM -0500 Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Scrubbing on a routine basis is good for detecting problems early, but it
doesn't solve the problem of a double failure during resilver. As the
size of disks become huge the chance of a double failure during
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:38 PM, zfsmonk leftlanep...@gmail.com wrote:
We recently upgraded last week to OpenSolaris Development snv_128a and all
things went fine, zpool still works, etc. Our disks come off a Hitachi Disk
Array and we have 2 qLogic fiber cards in our server.
cfgadm -al use
Charles Hedrick wrote:
Is ISCSI reliable enough for this?
YES.
The original idea is a good one, and one that I'd not thought of. The
(old) iSCSI implementation is quite mature, if not anywhere as nice
(feature/flexibility-wise) as the new COMSTAR stuff.
I'm thinking that just putting
47 matches
Mail list logo
