On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Basil Kurian <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Arun > > So that means that there is no way to accomblish that ??
I don't think so. You need to create a redundant pool to be able to do these things. http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide > A pool created without ZFS redundancy is harder to manage because you cannot > replace or detach disks in a non-redundant ZFS configuration. > > Please look at the second doubt also . > > [r...@beastie ~]# zpool attach nas da0 da1 Did you try: [r...@beastie ~]# zpool attach nas da1 da0 -Arun > > On 5 January 2011 10:07, Arun Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Basil Kurian <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Though the data stored in the pool is much less that the size of >> > individual disks , I 'm unable to remove any of the members from the pool. >> > How can I do that without losing data ? >> >> http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/zfs_block_allocation >> >> Even though the data could fit on one disk, zfs prefers to spread it >> across all available devices to maximize bandwidth. >> >> -Arun >> _______________________________________________ >> bsd-india mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.bsd-india.org/mailman/listinfo/bsd-india > > > > -- > Regards > > Basil Kurian > http://basilkurian.tk > RSA Public key : gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 41005549 > > > _______________________________________________ > bsd-india mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.bsd-india.org/mailman/listinfo/bsd-india > > _______________________________________________ bsd-india mailing list [email protected] http://www.bsd-india.org/mailman/listinfo/bsd-india
