[zfs-discuss] Re-write partition table cause the whole system crash
I'm using Open Solaris 10 doing some test on ZFS and Zpool.I've encountered a situation that caused the system crash. There are two SCSI disks connected to my computer, c1t0d0 was used as the bootable disk, c1t1d0 was used to test ZFS and Zpool. 1. Formating c1t1d0 to four partitions: format fdisk Total disk size is 8924 cylinders Cylinder size is 16065 (512 byte) blocks Cylinders Partition StatusType Start End Length% = == = === == === 1 Solaris2 4463 66932231 25 2 Solaris2 6694 7585 892 10 3 Solaris2 7586 8477 892 10 4 ActiveSolaris2 1 44624462 50 2. Creating a Zpool using the third partition: # zpool create tank c1t1d0p3 # zpool list NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT tank 6.81G 51.5K 6.81G 0% ONLINE - # 3.Deleting all the partitions: Total disk size is 8924 cylinders Cylinder size is 16065 (512 byte) blocks Cylinders Partition StatusType Start End Length% = == = === == === WARNING: no partitions are defined! 4.Destroying the zpool # zpool destroy tank After this command, the computer suddenly rebooted and stoped at GRUB. And my questions are: Why aren't there any warnings when or after I modified the disk's partition ? Why do the modifications to the second disk affect the first disk? Thanks for any help! This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: other panic caused by ZFS
Gino, Were you able to recover by setting zfs_recover? Unfortunately no :( Using zfs_recover not allowed us to recover any of the 5 corrupted zpool we had .. Please note that we lost this pool after a panic caused by trying to import a corrupted zpool! tnx, gino This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Unbelievable. an other crashed zpool :(
Gino, Can you send me the corefile from the zpool command? This is the only case where we are unable to import a corrupted zpool but not having a kernel panic: SERVER144@/# zpool import zpool3 internal error: unexpected error 5 at line 773 of ../common/libzfs_pool.c SERVER144@/# This looks like a case where we can't open the device for some reason. Are you using a multi-pathing solution other than MPXIO? no, we are using mpxio. no path or other devices failure. gino 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 improvements
Hi All I'd like to expose two points about ZFS that I think are a must before even trying to use it in production: 1) ZFS must stop to force kernel panics! As you know ZFS takes to a kernel panic when a corrupted zpool is found or if it's unable to reach a device and so on... We need to have it just fail with an error message but please stop crashing the kernel. 2) We need a way to recover a corrupted ZFS, trashing the last incompleted transactions. Please give us zfsck :) Waiting for comments, gino 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] Contents of transaction group?
Atul Vidwansa wrote: Hi, I have few questions about the way a transaction group is created. 1. Is it possible to group transactions related to multiple operations in same group? For example, an rmdir foo followed by mkdir bar, can these end up in same transaction group? 2. Is it possible for an operation (say write()) to occupie multiple transaction groups? 3. Is it possible to know the thread id(s) for every commited txg_id? What problem are you trying to solve here ? Why do you think it would be useful to know after the fact which threads did operations in a given transaction group ? -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot: a new heads-up
Hello Lori, Any chances to get 'how_to_netinstall_zfsboot' to public? -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS improvements
There was some discussion on the always panic for fatal pool failures issue in April 2006, but I haven't seen if an actual RFE was generated. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2006-April/017276.html 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 vs. rmvolmgr
Hi, while playing around with ZFS and USB memory sticks or USB harddisks, rmvolmgr tends to get in the way, which results in a can't open /dev/rdsk/cNt0d0p0, device busy error. So far, I've just said svcadm disable -t rmvolmgr, did my thing, then said svcadm enable rmvolmgr. Is there a more elegant approach that tells rmvolmgr to leave certain devices alone on a per disk basis? For instance, I'm now running several USB disks with ZFS pools on them, and even after restarting rmvolmgr or rebooting, ZFS, the disks and rmvolmgr get along with each other just fine. What and how does ZFS tell rmvolmgr that a particular set of disks belongs to ZFS and should not be treated as removable? Best regards, Constantin -- Constantin GonzalezSun Microsystems GmbH, Germany Platform Technology Group, Global Systems Engineering http://www.sun.de/ Tel.: +49 89/4 60 08-25 91 http://blogs.sun.com/constantin/ Sitz d. Ges.: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, 85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Add mirror to an existing Zpool
Hi, I have a zpool with only one disk. No mirror. I have some data in the file system. Is it possible to make my zpool redundant by adding a new disk in the pool and making it a mirror with the initial disk? If yes, how? Thanks Martin 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] Add mirror to an existing Zpool
Read the man page for zpool. Specifically, zpool attach. On 4/10/07, Martin Girard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a zpool with only one disk. No mirror. I have some data in the file system. Is it possible to make my zpool redundant by adding a new disk in the pool and making it a mirror with the initial disk? If yes, how? Thanks Martin This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Regards, Jeremy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Add mirror to an existing Zpool
Hi Martin, Yes, you can do this with the zpool attach command. See the output below. An example in the ZFS Admin Guide is here: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-2271/6mhupg6ft?a=view Cindy # zpool create mpool c1t20d0 # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpool ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t20d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool attach mpool c1t20d0 c1t21d0 # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Tue Apr 10 08:52:30 2007 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpoolONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t20d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t21d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # Martin Girard wrote: Hi, I have a zpool with only one disk. No mirror. I have some data in the file system. Is it possible to make my zpool redundant by adding a new disk in the pool and making it a mirror with the initial disk? If yes, how? Thanks Martin This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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] Add mirror to an existing Zpool
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Martin Girard wrote: Is it possible to make my zpool redundant by adding a new disk in the pool and making it a mirror with the initial disk? Sure, by using zpool attach: # mkfile 64m /tmp/foo /tmp/bar # zpool create tank /tmp/foo # zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM tankONLINE 0 0 0 /tmp/foo ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool attach tank /tmp/foo /tmp/bar # zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Tue Apr 10 10:51:58 2007 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 /tmp/foo ONLINE 0 0 0 /tmp/bar ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # Regards, markm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot: a new heads-up
Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Lori, Any chances to get 'how_to_netinstall_zfsboot' to public? I'm really close to putting it out there. I'm updating the install procedure and tool to support two things that it didn't support before: * setup of a dump slice, since zfs doesn't yet support dumping into a zvol. A zvol should be used for swap * splitting the Solaris name space into separate datasets for root, /usr, /var, /opt and /export. This is not required at this time, but we are likely to require it, or at least strongly recommend it, in the released version, because it simplifies some liveupgrade issues. Lori ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: CAD application not working with zfs
Dirk Jakobsmeier wrote: Hello Basrt, tanks for your answer. The filesystems on different projects are sized between 20 to 400 gb. Those filesystem sizes where no problem on earlier installation (vxfs) and should not be a problem now. I can reproduce this error with the 20 gb filesystem. Regards. Are you using nfsv4 for the mount? Or nfsv3? Some idea of the failing app's system calls just prior to failure may yield the answer as to what's causing the problem. These problems are usually mishandled error conditions... - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Poor man's backup by attaching/detaching mirror drives on a _striped_ pool?
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
Has anybody tried it yet with a striped mirror? What if the pool is
composed out of two mirrors? Can I attach devices to both mirrors, let
them resilver, then detach them and import the pool from those?
You'd want to export them, not detach them. Detaching will overwrite the
vdev labels and make it un-importable.
Off the top of my head (i.e. untested):
- zpool create tank mirror dev1 dev2 dev3
- zpool export tank
- {physically move dev3 to new box}
- zpool import tank
- zpool detach tank dev3
On the new box:
- zpool import tank
- zpool detach tank dev1
- zpool detach tank dev2
Regards,
markm
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs. rmvolmgr
Is there a more elegant approach that tells rmvolmgr to leave certain devices alone on a per disk basis? I was expecting there to be something in rmmount.conf to allow a specific device or pattern to be excluded but there appears to be nothing. Maybe this is an RFE? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS improvements
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:48:49AM -0700, Gino wrote: Hi All I'd like to expose two points about ZFS that I think are a must before even trying to use it in production: 1) ZFS must stop to force kernel panics! As you know ZFS takes to a kernel panic when a corrupted zpool is found or if it's unable to reach a device and so on... We need to have it just fail with an error message but please stop crashing the kernel. This is: 6322646 ZFS should gracefully handle all devices failing (when writing) Which is being worked on. Using a redundant configuration prevents this from happening. 2) We need a way to recover a corrupted ZFS, trashing the last incompleted transactions. Please give us zfsck :) Please the ZFS FAQ at: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#whynofsck Writing such a tool is effectively impossible. For the one known corruption bug we've encountered (and since fixed, we provided the 'zfs_recover' /etc/system switch, but it only works for this particular bug. Without understanding the underlying pathology it's impossible to fix a ZFS pool. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Poor man's backup by attaching/detaching mirror
one quickdirty way of backing up a pool that is a mirror of two devices is to zpool attach a third one, wait for the resilvering to finish, then zpool detach it again. The third device then can be used as a poor man's simple backup. How would you access the data on that device? -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Something like spare sectors...
Anton B. Rang wrote: This sounds a lot like: 6417779 ZFS: I/O failure (write on ...) -- need to reallocate writes Which would allow us to retry write failures on alternate vdevs. Of course, if there's only one vdev, the write should be retried to a different block on the original vdev ... right? Yes, although it depends on the nature of the write failure. If the write failed because the device is no longer available, ZFS will not continue to try different blocks. -Mark ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs snapshot issues.
Joseph Barbey wrote:
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Joseph Barbey wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
JB So, normally, when the script runs, all snapshots finish in
maybe a minute
JB total. However, on Sundays, it continues to take longer and
longer. On
JB 2/25 it took 30 minutes, and this last Sunday, it took 2:11.
The only
JB thing special thing about Sunday's snapshots is that they are
the first
JB ones created since the full backup (using NetBackup) on
Saturday. All
JB other backups are incrementals.
hm do you have atime property set to off?
Maybe you spend most of the time in destroying snapshots due to much
larger delta coused by atime updates? You can possibly also gain some
performance by setting atime to off.
Yep, atime is set to off for all pools and filesystems. I looked
through the other possible properties, and nothing really looked like
it would really affect things.
One additional weird thing. My script hits each filesystem
(email-pool/A..Z) individually, so I can run zfs list -t snapshot and
find out how long each snapshot actually takes. Everything runs fine
until I get to around V or (normally) W. Then it can take a couple
of hours on the one FS. After that, the rest go quickly.
So, what operation exactly is taking a couple of hours on the one
FS? The only one I can imagine taking more than a minute would be
'zfs destroy', but even that should be very rare on a snapshot. Is it
always the same FS that takes longer than the rest? Is the pool busy
when you do the slow operation?
I've now determined that renaming the previous snapshot seems to be the
problem in certain instances.
What we are currently doing through the script is to keep 2 weeks of
daily snapshots of the various pool/filesystems. These snapshots are
named {fs}.$Day-2, {fs}.$Day-2, and {fs}.snap. Specifically, for our
'V' filesystem, which is created under the email-pool, I will have the
following snapshots:
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, my script does the following for each FS:
Check for FS.$Day-2. If exists, then destroy it.
Check if there is a FS.$Day-1. If so, rename it to $DAY-2.
Check for FS.snap. If so, rename to FS.$Yesterday-1 (day it was created).
Create FS.snap
I added logging to a file, along with the action just run and the time
that it completed:
Destroy email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sun Apr 8 00:01:04 CDT 2007
Rename email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sun Apr 8
00:01:05 CDT 2007
Rename email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sun Apr 8
00:54:52 CDT 2007
Create email-pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sun Apr 8 00:54:53 CDT 2007
Looking at the above, Rename took from 00:01:05 until 00:54:52, so
almost 54 minutes.
So, any ideas on why a rename should take so long? And again, why is
this only happening on Sunday? Any other information I can provide that
might help diagnose this?
This could be an instance of:
6509628 unmount of a snapshot (from 'zfs destroy') is slow
The fact that this bug comes from a destroy op is not relevant, what is
relevant is the required unmount (also required in a rename op). Has
there been recent activity in the Sunday-1 snapshot (like a backup or
'find' perhaps)? This will cause the unmount to proceed very slowly.
-Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Renaming a pool?
Hi all, I have a pool called tank/home/foo and I want to rename it to tank/home/bar. What's the best way to do this (the zfs and zpool man pages don't have a rename option)? One way I can think of is to create a clone of tank/home/foo called tank/home/bar, and then destroy the former. Is that the best (or even only) way? TIA, -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: zfs destroy snapshot takes hours
i am having a similar problem - system hung on zfs destroy snapshot - 50% cpu utilization - running for hours - how can i know if i have the same problem? can you be specific about hpw to set the kernelbase? 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] Renaming a pool?
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Rich Teer wrote: I have a pool called tank/home/foo and I want to rename it to tank/home/bar. What's the best way to do this (the zfs and zpool man pages don't have a rename option)? In fact, there is a rename option for zfs: # zfs create tank/home # zfs create tank/home/foo # zfs list NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT tank 2.73G 5.52G 2.73G /tank tank/home36K 5.52G18K /tank/home tank/home/foo18K 5.52G18K /tank/home/foo # zfs rename tank/home/foo tank/home/bar # zfs list NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT tank 2.73G 5.52G 2.73G /tank tank/home38K 5.52G20K /tank/home tank/home/bar18K 5.52G18K /tank/home/bar # Regards, markm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Renaming a pool?
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Mark J Musante wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Rich Teer wrote: I have a pool called tank/home/foo and I want to rename it to tank/home/bar. What's the best way to do this (the zfs and zpool man pages don't have a rename option)? In fact, there is a rename option for zfs: Doh! That's what I get for reading the man page too fast... :-/ Many thanks, -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] # devices in raidz.
I noticed that there is still an open bug regarding removing devices from a zpool: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4852783 Does anyone know if or when this feature will be implemented? Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Mike, Yes, outside of the hot-spares feature, you can detach, offline, and replace existing devices in a pool, but you can't remove devices, yet. This feature work is being tracked under this RFE: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4852783 Cindy Mike Seda wrote: Hi All, From reading the docs, it seems that you can add devices (non-spares) to a zpool, but you cannot take them away, right? Best, Mike Victor Latushkin wrote: Maybe something like the slow parameter of VxVM? slow[=iodelay] Reduces toe system performance impact of copy operations. Such operations are usually per- formed on small regions of the volume (nor- mally from 16 kilobytes to 128 kilobytes). This option inserts a delay between the recovery of each such region . A specific delay can be specified with iodelay as a number of milliseconds; otherwise, a default is chosen (normally 250 milliseconds). For modern machines, which *should* be the design point, the channel bandwidth is underutilized, so why not use it? NB. At 4 128kByte iops per second, it would take 11 days and 8 hours to resilver a single 500 GByte drive -- feeling lucky? In the bad old days when disks were small, and the systems were slow, this made some sense. The better approach is for the file system to do what it needs to do as efficiently as possible, which is the current state of ZFS. Well, we are trying to balance impact of resilvering on running applications with a speed of resilvering. I think that having an option to tell filesystem to postpone full-throttle resilvering till some quieter period of time may help. This may be combined with some throttling mechanism so during quieter period resilvering is done with full speed, and during busy period it may continue with reduced speed. Such arrangement may be useful for customers with e.g. well-defined SLAs. Wbr, Victor ___ 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: zfs destroy snapshot takes hours
the release notes: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-0552/6mgbi4fgg?a=view say an alternative to fixing the kernelbase is to upgrade to 64 bit - i'm already running on a 64 bit sparc. maybe i have a different problem - my drives have spun down to sleepy mode - zfs is still burning coal. 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] Renaming a pool?
Rich Teer wrote: Hi all, I have a pool called tank/home/foo and I want to rename it to tank/home/bar. What's the best way to do this (the zfs and zpool man pages don't have a rename option)? Are you sure you have a pool with that name not a filesystem in a pool with that name ? See zfs(1) it does have a rename. One way I can think of is to create a clone of tank/home/foo called tank/home/bar, and then destroy the former. Is that the best (or even only) way? zfs rename tank/home/foo tank/home/bar Would be the best and documented way. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Overview (rollup) of recent activity on zfs-discuss
For background on what this is, see: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=24416#24416 http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=25200#25200 = zfs-discuss 03/16 - 03/31 = Size of all threads during period: Thread size Topic --- - 37 ZFS Boot support for the x86 platform 22 ZFS memory and swap usage 19 File level snapshots in ZFS? 16 ZFS over iSCSI question 16 6410 expansion shelf 15 asize is 300MB smaller than lsize - why? 15 ZFS with raidz 15 /tmp on ZFS? 14 migration/acl4 problem 14 ZFS performance with Oracle 13 Proposal: ZFS hotplug support and autoconfiguration 12 error-message from a nexsan-storage 11 Data Management API 11 Backup of ZFS Filesystem with ACL 4 10 Live Upgrade with zfs root? 9 today panic ... 9 Zones on large ZFS filesystems 9 ZFS layout for 10 disk? 9 Is there any performance problem with hard links in ZFS? 8 ZFS and Kstats 8 ZFS and Firewire/USB enclosures 7 gzip compression support 7 ZFS overhead killed my ZVOL 7 ZFS checksum error detection 7 ZFS and UFS performance 7 C'mon ARC, stay small... 6 ditto blocks for use data integrated in b61 6 How big a write to a regular file is atomic? 5 status of user delegation 5 ZFS filesystem online backup question 5 Pathological ZFS performance 5 Migrating a pool 5 HELP!! I can't mount my zpool!! 5 Gzip compression for ZFS 4 zfs send speed 4 update on zfs boot support 4 symlinks and ditto blocks 4 lost zfs mirror, need some help to recover 4 ZFS machine to be reinstalled 4 ZFS filesystem disappeared after reboot? 3 zpool/zfs size discrepency 3 missing features?Could/should zfs support a new ioctl, constrained if neede 3 mirror question 3 crash during snapshot operations 3 ZFS ontop of SVM - CKSUM errors 3 The value of validating your backups... 3 Proposal: ZFS hotplug supportandautoconfiguration 3 Large ZFS-bug... 3 ISCSI + ZFS + NFS 3 Heads up: 'zpool history' on-disk version change 3 Fwd: ZFS and Firewire/USB enclosures 3 Detecting failed drive under MPxIO + ZFS 2 user id mapping of exported fs 2 understanding zfs/thunoer bottlenecks? 2 a 30mb ZFS OS install 2 ZFS resilver/snap/scrub resetting status? 2 ZFS mount fails at boot 2 Recommended setup? 2 Atomic setting of properties? 2 (1) zfs list memory usage (2) zfs send/recv safety 1 zfs destroy snapshot takes hours 1 s10u3 (125101-03) isci zfs status 1 mount/umount test and ufs/zfs comparison 1 intel SSR212CC wasabi 1 how to delete one mirror of zfs pool? 1 baby milo bbc bape bathing ape clothing clothes billionaire boys club lrg 1 ZFS performance problems - solved 1 ZFS and file checksums 1 ZFS Web administration interface 1 Why replacing a drive generates writes to other disks? 1 Samba and ZFS ACL Question 1 REMINDER: FROSUG March Meeting Announcement (3/29/2007) 1 Proposal: ZFS hotplug 1 Pool problem 1 Is there any performance problem with hard 1 Assertion raised during zfs share? 1 log structured vs fixed block fs Posting activity by person for period: # of posts By -- -- 48 rmilkowski at task.gda.pl (robert milkowski) 20 richard.elling at sun.com (richard elling) 17 matthew.ahrens at sun.com (matthew ahrens) 16 malachid at gmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?malachi_de_=c6lfweald?=) 13 jeff.sutch at acm.org (js) 11 mattbreedlove at yahoo.com (matt b) 10 rheilke at dragonhearth.com (rainer heilke) 9 roch.bourbonnais at sun.com (roch - pae) 9 fcusack at fcusack.com (frank cusack) 8 weeyeh at gmail.com (wee yeh tan) 8 rang at acm.org (anton b. rang) 8 mark.shellenbaum at sun.com (mark shellenbaum) 8 ginoruopolo at hotmail.com (gino ruopolo) 8 emptysands at gmail.com (nicholas lee) 8 darren.moffat at sun.com (darren j moffat) 7 thomas.nau at uni-ulm.de (thomas nau) 7
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs. rmvolmgr
while playing around with ZFS and USB memory sticks or USB harddisks, rmvolmgr tends to get in the way, which results in a can't open /dev/rdsk/cNt0d0p0, device busy Do you remember exactly what command/operation resulted in this error? It is something that tries to open device exclusively. So far, I've just said svcadm disable -t rmvolmgr, did my thing, then said svcadm enable rmvolmgr. This can't possibly be true, because rmvolmgr does not open devices. You'd need to also disable the 'hal' service. Run fuser on your device and you'll see it's one of the hal addons that keeps it open: # ptree | grep hal 114531 /usr/lib/hal/hald --daemon=yes 114532 hald-runner 114537 /usr/lib/hal/hald-addon-storage 114540 /usr/lib/hal/hald-addon-storage 114558 /usr/lib/hal/hald-addon-storage # fuser /dev/rdsk/c2t0d0 /dev/rdsk/c2t0d0: 114558o # truss -p 114558 ioctl(4, 0x040D, 0x08047708)(sleeping...) ^C# grep 'DKIOC|13' /usr/include/sys/dkio.h #define DKIOCSTATE (DKIOC|13) /* Inquire insert/eject state */ HAL needs to know when a disk is hot-removed (even while opened by other processes/filesystems) and DKIOCSTATE is the Solaris way of achieving that. Is there a more elegant approach that tells rmvolmgr to leave certain devices alone on a per disk basis? For instance, I'm now running several USB disks with ZFS pools on them, and even after restarting rmvolmgr or rebooting, ZFS, the disks and rmvolmgr get along with each other just fine. I'm confused here. In the beginning you said that something got in the way, but now you're saying they get along just fine. Could you clarify. What and how does ZFS tell rmvolmgr that a particular set of disks belongs to ZFS and should not be treated as removable? One possible workaround would be to match against USB disk's serial number and tell hal to ignore it using fdi(4) file. For instance, find your USB disk in lshal(1M) output, it will look like this: udi = '/org/freedesktop/Hal/devices/pci_0_0/pci1028_12c_1d_7/storage_5_0' usb_device.serial = 'DEF1061F7B62' (string) usb_device.product_id = 26672 (0x6830) (int) usb_device.vendor_id = 1204 (0x4b4) (int) usb_device.vendor = 'Cypress Semiconductor' (string) usb_device.product = 'USB2.0 Storage Device' (string) info.bus = 'usb_device' (string) info.solaris.driver = 'scsa2usb' (string) solaris.devfs_path = '/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1028,[EMAIL PROTECTED],7/[EMAIL PROTECTED]' (string) You want to match an object with this usb_device.serial property and set info.ignore property to true. The fdi(4) would look like this: # cat /etc/hal/fdi/preprobe/30user/10-ignore-usb.fdi ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? deviceinfo version=0.2 device match key=usb_device.serial string=DEF1061F7B62 merge key=info.ignore type=booltrue/merge /match /device /deviceinfo Once the fdi is in place, 'svcadm restart hal' to enable it. Eventually we'll need better interaction between HAL and ZFS. -Artem. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Samba and ZFS ACL Question
3.0.25rc1 was released 2 days ago so the final version will be available soon. vfs_zfsacl.c module was tested soon so I think it is a question of 2-3 weeks. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Poor man's backup by attaching/detaching mirrordrives on a _striped_ pool?
You'd want to export them, not detach them. But you can't export just one branch of the mirror, can you? Off the top of my head (i.e. untested): - zpool create tank mirror dev1 dev2 dev3 - zpool export tank But this will unmount all the file systems, right? -- Anton This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Poor man's backup by attaching/detaching mirror
How would you access the data on that device? Presumably, zpool import. This is basically what everyone does today with mirrors, isn't it? :-) Anton This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS improvements
please stop crashing the kernel. This is: 6322646 ZFS should gracefully handle all devices failing (when writing) That's only one cause of panics. At least two of gino's panics appear due to corrupted space maps, for instance. I think there may also still be a case where a failure to read metadata during a transaction commit leads to a panic, too. Maybe that one's been fixed, or maybe it will be handled by the above bug. Maybe someone needs to file a bug/RFE to remove all panics from ZFS, at least in non-debug builds? The QFS approach is to panic when inconsistency is found on debug builds, but return an appropriate error code on release builds, which seems reasonable. I/O errors, of course, should never lead to a panic. I think we [you] fixed all of those cases in UFS, and QFS, long ago. Anton This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS improvements
Without understanding the underlying pathology it's impossible to fix a ZFS pool. Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. The goal of fsck is not to bring a file system into the state it should be in had no errors occurred. The goal, rather, is to bring a file system to a self-consistent state. Ideally, data should be recoverable when it's believed to be good (ZFS has a big advantage here, since the checksums can be used to validate block pointers). The ZFS on-disk data structure is basically a tree. zfsck could fairly easily walk the tree and ensure that, for instance, pools are at the top level; space maps match allocated blocks; block pointers from multiple files don't overlap; file lengths match their allocation; ACLs are not corrupted; compressed data is not damaged; directories are in the proper format; etc. This might be impractical for a large file system, of course. It might be easier to have a 'zscavenge' that would recover data, where possible, from a corrupted file system. But there should be at least one of these. Losing a whole pool due to the corruption of a couple of blocks of metadata is a Bad Thing. 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] Re: ZFS improvements
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 09:43:39PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote: That's only one cause of panics. At least two of gino's panics appear due to corrupted space maps, for instance. I think there may also still be a case where a failure to read metadata during a transaction commit leads to a panic, too. Maybe that one's been fixed, or maybe it will be handled by the above bug. The space map bugs should have been fixed as part of: 6458218 assertion failed: ss == NULL Which went into Nevada build 60. There are several different pathologies that can result from this bug, and I don't know if the panics are from before or after this fix. I hope folks from the ZFS team are investigating, but I can't speak for everyone. Maybe someone needs to file a bug/RFE to remove all panics from ZFS, at least in non-debug builds? The QFS approach is to panic when inconsistency is found on debug builds, but return an appropriate error code on release builds, which seems reasonable. In order to do this we need to fix 6322646 first, which addresses the issue of 'backing out' of a transaction once we're down in the ZIO layer discovering these problems. It doesn't matter if it's due to an I/O error or space map inconsistency or I/O error if we can't propagate the error. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: CAD application not working with zfs
Hello Bart, we´re using nfsv3 by default but also tried version 2. There is no difference between the two. Version 4 ist not possible with the aix 4.3.3 clients. Regards This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
