Hi Arun
I tried mirroring by "attach" command as u said . But one disk can mirror
only one other disk
[root@ ~]# zpool status nas
pool: nas
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
nas ONLINE 0 0 0
da0 ONLINE 0 0 0
da1 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
[root@ ~]# zpool attach nas da1 da2
[root@ ~]# zpool status nas
pool: nas
state: ONLINE
scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Wed Jan 5 13:32:38
2011
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
nas ONLINE 0 0 0
da0 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0 0 0
da1 ONLINE 0 0 0 58.5K resilvered
da2 ONLINE 0 0 0 50.1M resilvered
errors: No known data errors
[root@ ~]#
*can we bring the content of both da0 and da1 to one disk ??*
I don't know whether the question is sensible or not.
On 5 January 2011 12:44, Basil Kurian <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 January 2011 12:16, Arun Sharma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Arun
>
>
> Thanks for replying. Actually my intention was not to replace a faulty
> disk but to reduce the hardware from two disks to one disk.
>
>
>
> Please note that these are not production machines , I 'm just studying
> ZFS. These disks are on VirtualBox.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Basil Kurian
> http://basilkurian.tk
> RSA Public key : gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 41005549
>
>
--
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
