I have ZFS/Xen server for my home network. The box itself has two
physical NICs. I want Dom0 to be on my management network and the
guest domains to be on the dmz and private networks. The private
network is where all my home computers are and would like to export
iscsi volumes directly
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
For the archive, I swapped the mobo and all is good now... (I copied
100GB into the pool without a crash)
One problem I had was that Solaris would hang whenever booting - even
when all the aoc-sat2-mv8 cards were pulled out. Turns out that
switching the BIOS field USB 2.0 Controller Mode
Thanks for the note Anton. I let memtest86 run overnight and it found
no issues. I've also now moved the cards around and have confirmed that
slot #3 on the mobo is bad (all my aoc-sat2-mv8 cards, cables, and
backplanes are OK).
However, I think its more than just slot #3 that has a fault
Hey all,
I'm not sure if this is a ZFS bug or a hardware issue I'm having - any
pointers would be great!
Following contents include:
- high-level info about my system
- my first thought to debugging this
- stack trace
- format output
- zpool status output
- dmesg output
On a lark, I decided to create a new pool not including any devices
connected to card #3 (i.e. c5)
It crashes again, but this time with a slightly different dump (see below)
- actually, there are two dumps below, the first is using the xVM
kernel and the second is not
Any ideas?
Kent
Below I create zpools isolating one card at a time
- when just card#1 - it works
- when just card #2 - it fails
- when just card #3 - it works
And then again using the two cards that seem to work:
- when cards #1 and #3 - it fails
So, at first I thought I narrowed it down to a card, but
Eric Schrock wrote:
Or just let ZFS work its magic ;-)
Oh, I didn't realize that `zpool create` could be fed vdevs that didn't
exist in /dev/dsk/ - and, as a bonus, it also creates the /dev/dsk/ links!
# zpool create -f tank raidz2 c3t0d0 c3t4d0 c4t0d0 c4t4d0 c5t0d0 c5t4d0z
# ls -l
Kent Watsen wrote:
So, I picked up an AOC-SAT2-MV8 off eBay for not too much and then I got
a 4xSATA to one SFF-8087 cable to connect it to one one my six
backplanes. But, as fortune would have it, the cable I bought has SATA
connectors that are physically too big to plug into the AOC
Paul Jochum wrote:
What the lsiutil does for me is clear the persistent mapping for
all of the drives on a card.
Since James confirms that I'm doomed to ad hoc methods tracking
device-ids to bays, I'm interested in knowing if somehow your ability to
clear the persistent mapping for
Kent Watsen wrote:
Given that manually tracking shifting ids doesn't sound appealing to
me, would using a SATA controller like the AOC-SAT2-MV8 resolve the
issue? Given that I currently only have one LSI HBA - I'd need to get 2
more for all 24 drives ---or--- I could get 3 of these SATA
Eric Schrock wrote:
For x86 systems, you can use ipmitool to manipulate the led state
(ipmitool sunoem led ...). On older galaxy systems, you can only set the
fail LED ('io.hdd0.led'), as the ok2rm LED is not physically connected
to anything. On newer systems, you can set both the 'fail'
Based on recommendations from this list, I asked the company that built
my box to use an LSI SAS3081E controller.
The first problem I noticed was that the drive-numbers were ordered
incorrectly. That is, given that my system has 24 bays (6 rows, 4
bays/row), the drive numbers from
:-)
Kent Watsen wrote:
Based on recommendations from this list, I asked the company that
built my box to use an LSI SAS3081E controller.
The first problem I noticed was that the drive-numbers were ordered
incorrectly. That is, given that my system has 24 bays (6 rows, 4
bays/row
Hi Paul,
Already in my LSI Configuration Utility I have an option to clear the
persistent mapping for drives not present, but then the card resumes its
normal persistent-mapping logic. What I really want is to disable to
persistent mapping logic completely - is the `lsiutil` doing that for
How does one access the PSARC database to lookup the description of
these features?
Sorry if this has been asked before! - I tried google before posting
this :-[
Kent
George Wilson wrote:
ZFS Fans,
Here's a list of features that we are proposing for Solaris 10u5. Keep
in mind that
Probably not, my box has 10 drives and two very thirsty FX74 processors
and it draws 450W max.
At 1500W, I'd be more concerned about power bills and cooling than the UPS!
Yeah - good point, but I need my TV! - or so I tell my wife so I can
play with all this gear :-X
Cheers,
Kent
David Edmondson wrote:
One option I'm still holding on to is to also use the ZFS system as a
Xen-server - that is OpenSolaris would be running in Dom0... Given that
the Xen hypervisor has a pretty small cpu/memory footprint, do you think
it could share 2-cores + 4Gb with ZFS or should I
I know what you are saying, but I , wonder if it would be noticeable? I
Well, noticeable again comes back to your workflow. As you point out
to Richard, it's (theoretically) 2x IOPS difference, which can be very
significant for some people.
Yeah, but my point is if it would be noticeable
Hey Adam,
My first posting contained my use-cases, but I'd say that video
recording/serving will dominate the disk utilization - thats why I'm
pushing for 4 striped sets of RAIDZ2 - I think that it would be all
around goodness
It sounds good, that way, but (in theory), you'll see random
Nit: small, random read I/O may suffer. Large random read or any random
write workloads should be ok.
Given that video-serving is all sequential-read, is it correct that
that raidz2, specifically 4(4+2), would be just fine?
For 24 data disks there are enough combinations that it is not
Sorry, but looking again at the RMP page, I see that the chassis I
recommended is actually different than the one we have. I can't find
this chassis only online, but here's what we bought:
http://www.siliconmechanics.com/i10561/intel-storage-server.php?cat=625
That is such a cool looking
[CC-ing xen-discuss regarding question below]
Probably a 64 bit dual core with 4GB of (ECC) RAM would be a good
starting point.
Agreed.
So I was completely out of a the ball-park - I hope the ZFS Wiki can be
updated to contain some sensible hardware-sizing information...
One option I'm
I will only comment on the chassis, as this is made by AIC (short for
American Industrial Computer), and I have three of these in service at
my work. These chassis are quite well made, but I have experienced
the following two problems:
snip
Oh my, thanks for the heads-up! Charlie at
Fun exercise! :)
Indeed! - though my wife and kids don't seem to appreciate it so much ;)
I'm thinking about using this 26-disk case: [FYI: 2-disk RAID1 for
the OS 4*(4+2) RAIDZ2 for SAN]
What are you *most* interested in for this server? Reliability?
Capacity? High Performance?
Hi all,
I'm putting together a OpenSolaris ZFS-based system and need help
picking hardware.
I'm thinking about using this 26-disk case: [FYI: 2-disk RAID1 for the
OS 4*(4+2) RAIDZ2 for SAN]
http://rackmountpro.com/productpage.php?prodid=2418
Regarding the mobo, cpus, and memory - I
Richard's blog analyzes MTTDL as a function of N+P+S:
http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/raid_recommendations_space_vs_mttdl
But to understand how to best utilize an array with a fixed number of
drives, I add the following constraints:
- N+P should follow ZFS best-practice rule of
Resent as HTML to avoid line-wrapping:
Richard's blog analyzes MTTDL as a function of N+P+S:
http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/raid_recommendations_space_vs_mttdl
But to understand how to best utilize an array with a fixed number of
drives, I add the following constraints:
- N+P should
But to understand how to best utilize an array with a fixed number of
drives, I add the following constraints:
- N+P should follow ZFS best-practice rule of N={2,4,8} and P={1,2}
- all sets in an array should be configured similarly
- the MTTDL for S sets is equal to (MTTDL for one
Hi all,
I'm new here and to ZFS but I've been lurking for quite some time... My
question is simple: which is better 8+2 or 8+1+spare? Both follow the
(N+P) N={2,4,8} P={1,2} rule, but 8+2 results in a total or 10 disks,
which is one disk more than 3=num-disks=9 rule. But 8+2 has much
I think that the 3=num-disks=9 rule only applies to RAIDZ and it was
changed to 4=num-disks=10 for RAIDZ2, but I might be remembering wrong.
Can anybody confirm that the 3=num-disks=9 rule only applies to RAIDZ
and that 4=num-disks=10 applies to RAIDZ2?
Thanks,
Kent
Don't confuse vdevs with pools. If you add two 4+1 vdevs to a single pool it
still appears to be one place to put things. ;)
Newbie oversight - thanks!
Kent
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Another reason to recommend spares is when you have multiple top-level
vdevs
and want to amortize the spare cost over multiple sets. For example, if
you have 19 disks then 2x 8+1 raidz + spare amortizes the cost of the
spare
across two raidz sets.
-- richard
Interesting - I hadn't
Rob Logan wrote:
which is better 8+2 or 8+1+spare?
8+2 is safer for the same speed
8+2 requires alittle more math, so its slower in theory. (unlikely seen)
(4+1)*2 is 2x faster, and in theory is less likely to have wasted space
in transaction group (unlikely seen)
I keep reading
John-Paul Drawneek wrote:
Your data gets striped across the two sets so what you get is a raidz stripe
giving you the 2x faster.
tank
---raidz
--devices
---raidz
--devices
sorry for the diagram.
So you got your zpool tank with raidz stripe.
Thanks - I think you all have
35 matches
Mail list logo
