Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS conflict with MAID?
Hello Richard, Thursday, June 12, 2008, 6:54:29 AM, you wrote: RE Oracle bails out after 10 minutes (ORA-27062) ask me how I know... :-P So how do you know? -- Best regards, Robert Milkowskimailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool with RAID-5 from intelligent storage arrays
One thing I should mention on this is that I've had _very_ bad experience with using single-LUN ZFS filesystems over FC. that is, using an external SAN box to create a single LUN, export that LUN to a FC-connected host, then creating a pool as follows: zpool create tank LUN_ID It works fine, up until something bad happens to the array, or the FC connection (like, say, losing power to the whole system), and the host computer cannot talk to the LUN. This will corrupt the zpool permanently, and there is no way to fix the pool (and, without some magic in /etc/system , will leave the host in a permanent kernel panic loop). This is a known bug, and the fix isn't looking to be available anytime soon. This problem doesn't seem to manifest itself if the zpool has redundant members, even if they are on the same array (and thus, the host loses contact with both LUNs at the same time). So, for FC or iSCSI targets, I would HIGHLY recommend that ZFS _ALWAYS_ be configured in a redundant setup. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS and Automount/Hal/fstyp
Hi, I've got an external hard disk and I've done the stuff with zpool - so its all working. The problem I have, however, is whether it is possible to actually set it up so that zfs devices mount just like cd's and drives formatted as fat. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to cache data. Exactly the same here, though with different hardware (Netra T1 200 with 1 GB RAM and 2x 36 GB SCSI). If you put the UFS on top of an SVM mirror the difference is less noticeable but still there. I think that if you notice the common thread; those who run SPARC's are having performance issues vs. those who are running x86. I know from my experience, I have a P4 3.2Ghz prescott desktop with 2.5gb ram, and a Lenovo t61p laptop with 4gb, both of them have no performance issues with zfs; infact, with zfs, the performance has gone up. Matthew ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to cache data. Exactly the same here, though with different hardware (Netra T1 200 with 1 GB RAM and 2x 36 GB SCSI). If you put the UFS on top of an SVM mirror the difference is less noticeable but still there. I think that if you notice the common thread; those who run SPARC's are having performance issues vs. those who are running x86. I know from my experience, I have a P4 3.2Ghz prescott desktop with 2.5gb ram, and a Lenovo t61p laptop with 4gb, both of them have no performance issues with zfs; infact, with zfs, the performance has gone up. 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 identify zpool version
Peter Hawkins wrote: Can zpool on U3 be patched to V4? I've applied the latest cluster and it still seems to be V3. Yes, you can patch your way up to the Sol 10 U4 kernel (or even U5 kernel) which will give you zpool v4 support. The particular patch you need is 120011-14 or 120012-14 (sparc or x86). There is at least one dependency patch that is obsolete (122660-10/122661-10) but must still be installed before the kernel patch will go in, so you may need to install one or two patches manually to get it working. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-October/043331.html -Brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Problems under vmware
I am seeing the same problem using a seperate virtual disk for the pool. This is happening with Solaris 10 U3, U4 and U5 SCSI reservations is know to be an issue with clustered solaris http://blogs.sun.com/SC/entry/clustering_solaris_guests_that_run I wonder if this is the same problem. Maybe we have to use Raw Device Mapping (RDM) to get zfs to work under vmware. Anthony Worrall 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] memory hog
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that if you notice the common thread; those who run SPARC's are having performance issues vs. those who are running x86. Not that simple. I'm seeing performance issues on x86 just as much as sparc. My sparc comparison was simply that the only pair of identical machines I could do testing on just happened to be sparc. The *real* common thread is that you need ridiculous amounts of memory to get decent performance out of ZFS, whereas UFS gives reasonable performance on much smaller systems. On my servers where 16G minimum is reasonable, ZFS is fine. But the bulk of the installed base of machines accessed by users is still in the 512M-1G range - and Sun are still selling 512M machines. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Accessing zfs partitions on HDD from LiveCD
Answer is: # zpool import (which will pick up the zpool on the HDD and lists its name and id) # zpool import rpool (rpool is default opensolaris zpool) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS Mirror Problem
Well, I have a zpool created that contains four vdevs. Each Vdev is a mirror of a T3B lun and a corresponding lun of a SE3511 brick. I did this since I was new with ZFS and wanted to ensure that my data would survive an array failure. It turns out that I was smart for doing this :) I had a hardware failure on the SE3511 that caused the complete RAID5 lun on the se3511 to die. (The first glance showed 6 drives failed :( ) However, I would have expected that ZFS would detect the failed mirror halves and offline them as would ODS and VxVM. To my shock, it basically hung the server. I eventually had to unmap the SE3511 luns and replace them space I had available from another brick in the SE3511. I then did a zpool replace and ZFS reslivered the data. So, why did ZFS hang my server? This is on Solaris 11/06 kernel patch 127111-05 and ZFS version 4. 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] memory hog
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:21:26 +0100 Peter Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *real* common thread is that you need ridiculous amounts of memory to get decent performance out of ZFS That's FUD. Older systems might not have enough memory, but newer ones can't hardly be bought with less then 2Gb. Read the specs before you write such nonsense about ridiculous memory amounts. bulk of the installed base of machines accessed by users is still in the 512M-1G range True, buth those systems don't qualify for Vista nor for OpenSolaris, nor for a good ZFS based system. That's normal. Those machines are old. Not too old for ancient filesystems and lightweight desktops, but the -are- too old for modern software. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS Deferred Frees
I'm doing some simple testing of ZFS block reuse and was wondering when deferred frees kick in. Is it on some sort of timer to ensure data consistency? Does an other routine call it? Would something as simple as sync(1M) get the free block list written out so future allocations could use the space? ... or am I way off in the weeds? :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Problems under vmware
Added an vdev using rdm and that seems to be stable over reboots however the pools based on a virtual disk now also seems to be stable after doing an export and import -f This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
Hi, zpool does not to create a pool on USB disk (formatted in FAT32). # /usr/sbin/zpool create alpha c5t0d0p0 cannot open '/dev/dsk/c5t0d0p0': Device busy or # /usr/sbin/zpool create alpha /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 cannot use '/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0': must be a block device or regular file What is gonna do to create a pool on a disk please? Regards. Andrius ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:10:14 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: zpool does not to create a pool on USB disk (formatted in FAT32). It's already been formatted. Try zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:10:14 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: zpool does not to create a pool on USB disk (formatted in FAT32). It's already been formatted. Try zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 The same story # /usr/sbin/zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 cannot open '/dev/dsk/c5t0d0p0': Device busy Regards, Andrius ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:23:35 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The same story # /usr/sbin/zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 cannot open '/dev/dsk/c5t0d0p0': Device busy Are you sure you're not on that device? Are you also sure your usb stick is called c5t0d0p0? What does rmformat (as root) say? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:23:35 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The same story # /usr/sbin/zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 cannot open '/dev/dsk/c5t0d0p0': Device busy Are you sure you're not on that device? Are you also sure your usb stick is called c5t0d0p0? What does rmformat (as root) say? The device is on, but it is empty. It is not a stick, it is a mobile hard disk Iomega 160 GB. # rmformat Looking for devices... 1. Volmgt Node: /vol/dev/aliases/cdrom0 Logical Node: /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s2 Physical Node: /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 Connected Device: PIONEER DVD-RW DVR-112D 1.21 Device Type: DVD Reader/Writer 2. Volmgt Node: /vol/dev/aliases/rmdisk0 Logical Node: /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 Physical Node: /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1106,[EMAIL PROTECTED],4/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 Connected Device: Ext Hard Disk Device Type: Removable -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
Andrius wrote: dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:10:14 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: zpool does not to create a pool on USB disk (formatted in FAT32). It's already been formatted. Try zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 The same story # /usr/sbin/zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 cannot open '/dev/dsk/c5t0d0p0': Device busy When you insert a USB stick into a running Solaris system, and it is FAT32 formatted, it may be automatically mounted as a filesystem, read/write. The command above fails since it is already mounted and busy. You may wish to use the df command to verify this. If it is mounted, try unmounting it fist, and then using the command; # /usr/sbin/zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 Regards, Andrius ___ 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] ?: 1/2 Billion files in ZFS
Has anybody stored 1/2 billion small ( 50KB) files in a ZFS data store? If so, any feedback in how many file systems [and sub-file systems, if any] you used? How were ls times? And insights in snapshots, clones, send/receive, or restores in general? How about NFS access? Thanks Steffen ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool with RAID-5 from intelligent storage arrays
I'm not sure why people obsess over this issue so much. Disk is cheap. We have a fair number of 3510 and 2540 on our SAN. They make RAID-5 LUNs available to various servers. On the servers we take RAID-5 LUNs from different arrays and ZFS mirror them. So if any array goes away we are still uperational. VERY ROBUST! If you are trying to be cheap, then you could: 1) Use copies=2 to make sure data is duplicated 2) Advertise individual disks as LUN build RAIDZ2 on them. The advantage of intelligent array is I have low-level control of matching a hot-spare in array#1 to the LUN in array#1. ZFS does not have this fine-grained hot-spare capability yet so I just don't use ZFS sparing. Also the array has SAN connectivity and caching and dual-controllers that just don't exist in the JBOD world. I am hosting mailboxs for 50K people, we cannot afford lengthy downtimes. 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] USB hard to ZFS
Neal Pollack wrote: Andrius wrote: dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:10:14 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: zpool does not to create a pool on USB disk (formatted in FAT32). It's already been formatted. Try zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 The same story # /usr/sbin/zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 cannot open '/dev/dsk/c5t0d0p0': Device busy When you insert a USB stick into a running Solaris system, and it is FAT32 formatted, it may be automatically mounted as a filesystem, read/write. The command above fails since it is already mounted and busy. You may wish to use the df command to verify this. If it is mounted, try unmounting it fist, and then using the command; That is true, disc is detected automatically. But # umount /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 umount: warning: /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 not in mnttab umount: /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 not mounted -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Problem with missing disk in RaidZ
Thanks to the help in a previous post I have imported my pool. However I would appreciate some help with my next problem. This all arose because my motherboard failed while my zpool was resilvering from a failed disk. I moved the disks to a new motherboard and imported the pool with the help of the posters here. However when imported the new system spawned regular error messages regarding the new disk and eventually the system would hang after about a minute, really hang - completeley locked. I tried killing the resilver with scrub -s but it just said that no scrub was in progress. Eventaully I detached the replacement disk and the system stayed running with the pool imported. However my pool is now in this state: pool: rz1500 state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-D3 scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Mon Jun 16 18:37:07 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM rz1500 DEGRADED 0 0 0 raidz1DEGRADED 0 0 0 c2d0p0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3d0p0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6d0p0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7d0UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open errors: No known data errors The missing device was c7d0p0 and I now have another brand new disk to replace it. I can't attach the device as there seems to be no RaidZ attach syntax, and onlining the device makes no difference. I need to add back the device that I detached to this RaidZ pool. I'm on S10 x86 U3 patched to zpool V4. 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] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:38:11 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The device is on, but it is empty. It is not a stick, it is a mobile hard disk Iomega 160 GB. Like Neal writes: check if the drive is mounted. Do a df -h Unmount it if neccessary (umount /dev/dsk/c5t0d0) and then do a zpool create alpha c5t1d0 Afaik the p0 is not needed. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
Andrius wrote: Neal Pollack wrote: Andrius wrote: dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:10:14 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: zpool does not to create a pool on USB disk (formatted in FAT32). It's already been formatted. Try zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 The same story # /usr/sbin/zpool create -f alpha c5t0d0p0 cannot open '/dev/dsk/c5t0d0p0': Device busy When you insert a USB stick into a running Solaris system, and it is FAT32 formatted, it may be automatically mounted as a filesystem, read/write. The command above fails since it is already mounted and busy. You may wish to use the df command to verify this. If it is mounted, try unmounting it fist, and then using the command; That is true, disc is detected automatically. But # umount /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 umount: warning: /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 not in mnttab umount: /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 not mounted The umount command works best with a filesystem name. the mount command will show what filesytems are mounted. For example, if I stick in a USB thumb-drive: #mount ... /media/LEXAR MEDIA on /dev/dsk/c9t0d0p0:1 read/write/nosetuid/nodevices/hidden/nofoldcase/clamptime/noatime/timezone=28800/dev=e01050 on Mon Jun 16 11:01:37 2008 #df -hl /dev/dsk/c9t0d0p0:1991M 923M68M94%/media/LEXAR MEDIA #umount /media/LEXAR MEDIA # And then it no longer shows up in the df or the mount command. Neal ___ 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] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:00:59 +0200 dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unmount it if neccessary (umount /dev/dsk/c5t0d0) Should be /dev/dsk/c5t1d0 -- -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:04:08 +0200 dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should be /dev/dsk/c5t1d0 -- Sh***t! No it should not. rmformat showed c5t0d0, didn't it? So be careful. A typo is quickly made (see my msgs) ;-) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
Miles Nordin wrote: a == Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a # umount /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 maybe there is another problem, too, but this is wrong. type 'df -k' as he suggested and use the device or pathname listed there. This is end of df -k /vol/dev/dsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk:c 156250144 96 156250048 1% /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:54:04 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is true, disc is detected automatically. But # umount /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 umount: warning: /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0p0 not in mnttab umount /dev/dsk/c5t0d0 should do it. The same # umount /dev/dsk/c5t0d0 umount: warning: /dev/dsk/c5t0d0 not in mnttab umount: /dev/dsk/c5t0d0 no such file or directory -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with missing disk in RaidZ
Try 'zpool replace'. - Eric On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:40AM -0700, Peter Hawkins wrote: Thanks to the help in a previous post I have imported my pool. However I would appreciate some help with my next problem. This all arose because my motherboard failed while my zpool was resilvering from a failed disk. I moved the disks to a new motherboard and imported the pool with the help of the posters here. However when imported the new system spawned regular error messages regarding the new disk and eventually the system would hang after about a minute, really hang - completeley locked. I tried killing the resilver with scrub -s but it just said that no scrub was in progress. Eventaully I detached the replacement disk and the system stayed running with the pool imported. However my pool is now in this state: pool: rz1500 state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-D3 scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Mon Jun 16 18:37:07 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM rz1500 DEGRADED 0 0 0 raidz1DEGRADED 0 0 0 c2d0p0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3d0p0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6d0p0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7d0UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open errors: No known data errors The missing device was c7d0p0 and I now have another brand new disk to replace it. I can't attach the device as there seems to be no RaidZ attach syntax, and onlining the device makes no difference. I need to add back the device that I detached to this RaidZ pool. I'm on S10 x86 U3 patched to zpool V4. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Eric Schrock, Fishworkshttp://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:10:18 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk umount /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk should do the trick It's probably also mounted on /media depending on your solaris version. If so, umount /media/unnamed_rmdisk unmounts the disk too. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:00:59 +0200 dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unmount it if neccessary (umount /dev/dsk/c5t0d0) Should be /dev/dsk/c5t1d0 -- Still the same # umount /dev/rdsk/c5t1d0 umount: warning: /dev/rdsk/c5t1d0 not in mnttab umount: /dev/rdsk/c5t1d0 no such file or directory -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:10:18 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk umount /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk should do the trick It's probably also mounted on /media depending on your solaris version. If so, umount /media/unnamed_rmdisk unmounts the disk too. It is mounted on /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk. It is Solaris 10. #umount /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk umount: warning: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk not in mnttab umount: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk not mounted -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] RFE 4852783
Is RFE 4852783 (need for an equivalent to LVM2's pvmove) likely to happen within the next year? My use-case is home user. I have 16 disks spinning, two towers of eight disks each, exporting some of them as iSCSI targets. Four disks are 1TB disks already in ZFS mirrors, and 12 disks are 180 - 320GB and contain 12 individual filesystems. If RFE 4852783 will happen in a year, I can move the smaller disks and their data into the ZFS mirror. As they die I will replace them with pairs of ~1TB disks. I worry the RFE won't happen because it looks 5 years old with no posted ETA. If it won't be closed within a year, some of those 12 disks will start failing and need replacement. We find we lose one or two each year. If I added them to ZFS, I'd have to either waste money, space, power on buying undersized replacement disks, or else do silly and dangerously confusing things with slices. Therefore in that case I will leave the smaller disks out of ZFS and add only 1TB devices to these immutable vdev's. pgp3B4Guob7dg.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Andrius wrote: dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:10:18 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk umount /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk should do the trick It's probably also mounted on /media depending on your solaris version. If so, umount /media/unnamed_rmdisk unmounts the disk too. It is mounted on /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk. It is Solaris 10. #umount /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk umount: warning: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk not in mnttab umount: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk not mounted This disk is probably under volume manager control. Try running eject unnamed_rmdisk. -- Martin Winkelman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 303-272-3122 http://www.sun.com/solarisready/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ?: 1/2 Billion files in ZFS
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Steffen Weiberle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anybody stored 1/2 billion small ( 50KB) files in a ZFS data store? If so, any feedback in how many file systems [and sub-file systems, if any] you used? I'm not quite there yet, although I have a thumper with about 110 million files on it. That's across a couple of dozen filesystems, one has 27 million files (and is going to get to one or two hundred million on its own before it's done), and several have over 10 million. So while we're not there yet, it's only a question of time. How were ls times? And insights in snapshots, clones, send/receive, or restores in general? Directory listings aren't quick. Snapshots are easy to create; we have seen destroying a snapshot take hours. Using send/receive (or anything else, like tar) isn't quick. I suspect that using raidz is less than ideal for this sort of workload (our workload has changed somewhat over the last year); I haven't got anything like the resources to try alternatives, as I suspect we're being bitten by the relatively poor performance of raidz for random reads (basically you only get one disk's worth of I/O per vdev). Backups are slow. We seem to be able to do about 10 million files a day. I'm wishing I don't ever have to tell you what restore times are like ;-) I think that you need some way of breaking the data up - either by filesystem or just by directory hierarchy - into digestible chunks. For us that's at about the 1Tbyte/10 million file point at the most - we're looking at restructuring the directory hierarchy for the filesystems that are beyond this so we can back them up in pieces. How about NFS access? Seems to work fine. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
Martin Winkelman wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Andrius wrote: dick hoogendijk wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:10:18 +0100 Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk umount /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk should do the trick It's probably also mounted on /media depending on your solaris version. If so, umount /media/unnamed_rmdisk unmounts the disk too. It is mounted on /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk. It is Solaris 10. #umount /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk umount: warning: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk not in mnttab umount: /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk not mounted This disk is probably under volume manager control. Try running eject unnamed_rmdisk. -- Martin Winkelman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 303-272-3122 http://www.sun.com/solarisready/ # eject /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk No such file or directory # eject /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0s0 /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0s0 is busy (try 'eject floppy' or 'eject cdrom'?) # eject rmdisk /vol/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk: Inappropriate ioctl for device # eject /vol/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk /vol/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk: No such file or directory -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Andrius wrote: # eject /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk No such file or directory # eject /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0s0 /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0s0 is busy (try 'eject floppy' or 'eject cdrom'?) # eject rmdisk /vol/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk: Inappropriate ioctl for device # eject /vol/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk /vol/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk: No such file or directory # mount |grep rmdisk /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk on /vol/dev/dsk/c2t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk:c read/write/setuid/devices/nohidden/nofoldcase/dev=16c1003 on Mon Jun 16 12:51:07 2008 # eject unnamed_rmdisk # mount |grep rmdisk # -- Martin Winkelman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 303-272-3122 http://www.sun.com/solarisready/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
Martin Winkelman wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Andrius wrote: # eject /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk No such file or directory # eject /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0s0 /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0s0 is busy (try 'eject floppy' or 'eject cdrom'?) # eject rmdisk /vol/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk: Inappropriate ioctl for device # eject /vol/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk /vol/dev/rdsk/c5t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk: No such file or directory # mount |grep rmdisk /rmdisk/unnamed_rmdisk on /vol/dev/dsk/c2t0d0/unnamed_rmdisk:c read/write/setuid/devices/nohidden/nofoldcase/dev=16c1003 on Mon Jun 16 12:51:07 2008 # eject unnamed_rmdisk # mount |grep rmdisk # -- Martin Winkelman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 303-272-3122 http://www.sun.com/solarisready/ Sorry what a second row should be please? -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RFE 4852783
This is actually quite a tricky fix as obviously data and meta data have to be relocated. Although there's been no visible activity in this bug there has been substantial design activity to allow the RFE to be easily fixed. Anyway, to answer your question, I would fully expect this RFE would be fixed within a year, but can't guarantee it. Neil. Miles Nordin wrote: Is RFE 4852783 (need for an equivalent to LVM2's pvmove) likely to happen within the next year? My use-case is home user. I have 16 disks spinning, two towers of eight disks each, exporting some of them as iSCSI targets. Four disks are 1TB disks already in ZFS mirrors, and 12 disks are 180 - 320GB and contain 12 individual filesystems. If RFE 4852783 will happen in a year, I can move the smaller disks and their data into the ZFS mirror. As they die I will replace them with pairs of ~1TB disks. I worry the RFE won't happen because it looks 5 years old with no posted ETA. If it won't be closed within a year, some of those 12 disks will start failing and need replacement. We find we lose one or two each year. If I added them to ZFS, I'd have to either waste money, space, power on buying undersized replacement disks, or else do silly and dangerously confusing things with slices. Therefore in that case I will leave the smaller disks out of ZFS and add only 1TB devices to these immutable vdev's. ___ 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] memory hog
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM, dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:21:26 +0100 Peter Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *real* common thread is that you need ridiculous amounts of memory to get decent performance out of ZFS That's FUD. Older systems might not have enough memory, but newer ones can't hardly be bought with less then 2Gb. Read the specs before you write such nonsense about ridiculous memory amounts. Hogwash. What is the reasonable minimum? I'm suspecting it's well over 2G. And as for being unable to get machines with less than 2G, just look at Sun's price list - plenty of 1G, and the X2100, Ultra 20, and Ultra 24 all come in 512M configurations. Yes, it's not very smart, but it doesn't just set the target range now but for the working lifetime of the machines, which is at least 3 years. bulk of the installed base of machines accessed by users is still in the 512M-1G range True, buth those systems don't qualify for Vista nor for OpenSolaris, nor for a good ZFS based system. That's normal. Those machines are old. Not too old for ancient filesystems and lightweight desktops, but the -are- too old for modern software. So you're saying that if people want to even try OpenSolaris then they need to throw away their perfectly functional hardware and buy something new? Hardly a strategy for success. 1G is more than enough to run a modern desktop (although heavier use and more apps will drive the requirement up beyond that). (And it's not just a case of looking at the memory in the hardware - as virtualization becomes more and more widely used that memory allocation gets split up into smaller chunks that get allocated to virtual systems.) -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] USB hard to ZFS
Since Volume Management has control and eject didn't work, just turning off Volume Management will do the trick. # svcadm disable volfs Now you can remove it safely. Paul ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [SOLVED] USB hard to ZFS
Paul Gress wrote: Since Volume Management has control and eject didn't work, just turning off Volume Management will do the trick. # svcadm disable volfs Now you can remove it safely. Paul Thanks! It works. Volume managagement is that thing that does not exist in zfs perhaps and made disk managemet more easy. Thanks for everybody for advices. Volume Manager should be off before creating pools in removable disks. -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [SOLVED] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Andrius wrote: Thanks! It works. Volume managagement is that thing that does not exist in zfs perhaps and made disk managemet more easy. Thanks for everybody for advices. Volume Manager should be off before creating pools in removable disks. Probably it will work to edit /etc/vold.conf and comment out the line use rmdisk drive /dev/rdsk/c*s2 dev_rmdisk.so rmdisk%d Then do kill -HUP `pgrep vold` Otherwise cdroms and other valuable devices won't be mounted. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] questions about ZFS Send/Receive
Hi guys, we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS (i.e. NFS server). Both server will contain the same files and should be accessed by different clients at the same time (i.e. they should be both active) So we need to guarantee that both x4500 contain the same files: We could simply copy the contents on both x4500 , which is an option because the new files are in a limited number and rate , but we would really like to use ZFS send receive commands: AFAIK the commands works fine but generally speaking are there any known limitations ? And, in detail , it is not clear if the receiving ZFS file system could be used regularly while it is in receiving mode: in poor words is it possible to read and export in nfs, files from a ZFS file system while it is receiving update from another ZFS send ? Clearly until the new updates are received and applied the old copy would be used TIA Stefano Sun Microsystems Spa Viale Fulvio testi 327 20162 Milano ITALYSTEFANO PINI Senior Technical Specialist at Sun Microsystems Italy contact | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +39 02 64152150 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:04:47 +0100 Peter Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hogwash. What is the reasonable minimum? I'm suspecting it's well over 2G. 2Gb is perfectly alright. And as for being unable to get machines with less than 2G, just look at Sun's price list I'm not saying you can't buy machines w/ 512mb-1gb. I'm saying that the majority of computers offered in stores comes w/ a minimum of 2Gb. At least in the Netherlands. So you're saying that if people want to even try OpenSolaris then they need to throw away their perfectly functional hardware and buy something new? 512mb is the bare minimum for OpenSolaris. Take it or leave it. That doesn't mean people have to throw their machines away. They could try to add ram. I -do- say that 512mb ram is stone age. 1G is more than enough to run a modern desktop (although heavier use and more apps will drive the requirement up beyond that). 1Gb is minimum for a modern desktop and a few apps like the Gimp / OpenOffice. That leaves hardly some room for modern filesystems, nor does it leave room for virtualization. (And it's not just a case of looking at the memory in the hardware - as virtualization becomes more and more widely used that memory allocation gets split up into smaller chunks that get allocated to virtual systems.) That's why a modern machine needs at least 2GB ram. That way you can have a modern desktop; a modern FS like ZFS and one xVM. Below that all you have is a modern desktop. No room to play with the modern goodies like xVM / ZFS Given the fact that 2GB sales for about 30 euro, that's cheap. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] RFE 4852783
Why would you have to buy smaller disks? You can replace the 320's with 1tb drives and after the last 320 is out of the raidgroup, it will grow automatically. On 6/16/08, Miles Nordin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is RFE 4852783 (need for an equivalent to LVM2's pvmove) likely to happen within the next year? My use-case is home user. I have 16 disks spinning, two towers of eight disks each, exporting some of them as iSCSI targets. Four disks are 1TB disks already in ZFS mirrors, and 12 disks are 180 - 320GB and contain 12 individual filesystems. If RFE 4852783 will happen in a year, I can move the smaller disks and their data into the ZFS mirror. As they die I will replace them with pairs of ~1TB disks. I worry the RFE won't happen because it looks 5 years old with no posted ETA. If it won't be closed within a year, some of those 12 disks will start failing and need replacement. We find we lose one or two each year. If I added them to ZFS, I'd have to either waste money, space, power on buying undersized replacement disks, or else do silly and dangerously confusing things with slices. Therefore in that case I will leave the smaller disks out of ZFS and add only 1TB devices to these immutable vdev's. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [SOLVED] USB hard to ZFS
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Andrius wrote: Thanks! It works. Volume managagement is that thing that does not exist in zfs perhaps and made disk managemet more easy. Thanks for everybody for advices. Volume Manager should be off before creating pools in removable disks. Probably it will work to edit /etc/vold.conf and comment out the line use rmdisk drive /dev/rdsk/c*s2 dev_rmdisk.so rmdisk%d Then do kill -HUP `pgrep vold` Otherwise cdroms and other valuable devices won't be mounted. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ After commenting # kill -HUP 'pgrep vold' kill: invalid id -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [SOLVED] USB hard to ZFS
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Andrius wrote: After commenting # kill -HUP 'pgrep vold' kill: invalid id We're in the 21st century, so # pkill -HUP vold should work just fine. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [SOLVED] USB hard to ZFS
Andrius wrote: Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Andrius wrote: Thanks! It works. Volume managagement is that thing that does not exist in zfs perhaps and made disk managemet more easy. Thanks for everybody for advices. Volume Manager should be off before creating pools in removable disks. Probably it will work to edit /etc/vold.conf and comment out the line use rmdisk drive /dev/rdsk/c*s2 dev_rmdisk.so rmdisk%d Then do kill -HUP `pgrep vold` Otherwise cdroms and other valuable devices won't be mounted. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ After commenting # kill -HUP 'pgrep vold' kill: invalid id You used forward quotes, not back quotes. Use ` not '. ___ 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] [SOLVED] USB hard to ZFS
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Andrius wrote: After commenting # kill -HUP 'pgrep vold' kill: invalid id It looks like you used forward quotes rather than backward quotes. I did just try this procedure myself with my own USB drive and it works fine. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ That is true, but # kill -HUP `pgrep vold` usage: kill [ [ -sig ] id ... | -l ] -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [SOLVED] USB hard to ZFS
Andrius wrote: That is true, but # kill -HUP `pgrep vold` usage: kill [ [ -sig ] id ... | -l ] I think you already did this as per a previous message: # svcadm disable volfs As such, vold isn't running. Re-enable the service and you should be fine. -Brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [SOLVED] USB hard to ZFS
Brian H. Nelson wrote: Andrius wrote: That is true, but # kill -HUP `pgrep vold` usage: kill [ [ -sig ] id ... | -l ] I think you already did this as per a previous message: # svcadm disable volfs As such, vold isn't running. Re-enable the service and you should be fine. -Brian Cool! Thank's. Another question arised to transfer (or copy) file systems from one pool to another, but hope to find it in manuals. -- Regards, Andrius Burlega begin:vcard fn:Andrius Burlega n:Burlega;Andrius email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:+353876301575 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
| I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can | purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. | | Its not like were talking about a 500 dollar purchase. 'On a desktop' is an important qualification here. Server RAM is more expensive, and then you get to multiply it by the number of servers you are buying. It does add up. - cks ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Remind me again what a veritas license is. If you can't find ram for less than that you need to find a new var/disti On 6/16/08, Chris Siebenmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can | purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. | | Its not like were talking about a 500 dollar purchase. 'On a desktop' is an important qualification here. Server RAM is more expensive, and then you get to multiply it by the number of servers you are buying. It does add up. - cks ___ 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] ZFS Mirror Problem
Matthew C Aycock wrote: Well, I have a zpool created that contains four vdevs. Each Vdev is a mirror of a T3B lun and a corresponding lun of a SE3511 brick. I did this since I was new with ZFS and wanted to ensure that my data would survive an array failure. It turns out that I was smart for doing this :) I had a hardware failure on the SE3511 that caused the complete RAID5 lun on the se3511 to die. (The first glance showed 6 drives failed :( ) However, I would have expected that ZFS would detect the failed mirror halves and offline them as would ODS and VxVM. To my shock, it basically hung the server. I eventually had to unmap the SE3511 luns and replace them space I had available from another brick in the SE3511. I then did a zpool replace and ZFS reslivered the data. So, why did ZFS hang my server? It was patiently waiting. This is on Solaris 11/06 kernel patch 127111-05 and ZFS version 4. Additional failure management improvements were integrated into NV b72 (IIRC). I'm not sure when or if those changes will make it into Solaris 10, but update 6 would be a good guess. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with missing disk in RaidZ
Tried zpool replace. Unfortunately that takes me back into the cycle where as soon as the resilver starts the system hangs, not even CAPS Lock works. When I reset the system I have about a 10 second window to detach the device again to get the system back before it freezes. Finally detached it so I'm back where I started. 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] ZFS Mirror Problem
Richard Elling wrote: Matthew C Aycock wrote: Well, I have a zpool created that contains four vdevs. Each Vdev is a mirror of a T3B lun and a corresponding lun of a SE3511 brick. I did this since I was new with ZFS and wanted to ensure that my data would survive an array failure. It turns out that I was smart for doing this :) I had a hardware failure on the SE3511 that caused the complete RAID5 lun on the se3511 to die. (The first glance showed 6 drives failed :( ) However, I would have expected that ZFS would detect the failed mirror halves and offline them as would ODS and VxVM. To my shock, it basically hung the server. I eventually had to unmap the SE3511 luns and replace them space I had available from another brick in the SE3511. I then did a zpool replace and ZFS reslivered the data. So, why did ZFS hang my server? It was patiently waiting. This is on Solaris 11/06 kernel patch 127111-05 and ZFS version 4. Additional failure management improvements were integrated into NV b72 (IIRC). I'm not sure when or if those changes will make it into Solaris 10, but update 6 would be a good guess. -- richard My understanding talking with the relevant folks is that the fix will be in 10 Update 6, but not likely available as a patch beforehand. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] LSAI SAS SATA card and MB comptability questions?
Hello, I am new to open solaris and am trying to setup a ZFS based storage solution. I am looking at setting up a system with the following specs: Intel BOXDG33FBC Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz 2 or 4 GB ram For the drives I am looking at using a LSI SAS3081E-R I've been reading around and it sounds like LSI solutions work well in terms of compatability with solaris. Could someone help me verify this? Or are there any alternate cards I should be looking at? I'm looking at having a max of 12 HDs so I'd use this card in conjunction with another 2 or 4 port card. My other option is to get 3 PCI or PCIE based 4 port cards which I am open to. I'm just trying to keep the cost low. Thank you 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] LSAI SAS SATA card and MB comptability questions?
Aaron Moore wrote: I am new to open solaris and am trying to setup a ZFS based storage solution. I am looking at setting up a system with the following specs: Intel BOXDG33FBC Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz 2 or 4 GB ram For the drives I am looking at using a LSI SAS3081E-R I've been reading around and it sounds like LSI solutions work well in terms of compatability with solaris. Could someone help me verify this? Or are there any alternate cards I should be looking at? I'm looking at having a max of 12 HDs so I'd use this card in conjunction with another 2 or 4 port card. My other option is to get 3 PCI or PCIE based 4 port cards which I am open to. I'm just trying to keep the cost low. In general, LSI cards based on the 1064 or 1068 chips should work out of the box with the Sun-supplied mpt(7d) driver. I think your motherboard and cpu choice are fine, and I encourage you to stuff as much ram as possible onto the board ;) James C. McPherson -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
