[zfs-discuss] how do I fix this situation?
Hi everybody, while trying to figure out what on earth has been going on in my u20m2 due to 6636511 u20m2 bios version 1.45.1 still can't distinguish disks on sata channel #1, I engaged in a lot of cable swapping operations for the internal sata drive cables. Somehow I've managed to end up with an allegedly corrupted zpool, which I was unable to do a zpool replace on, and now I can't import it either. Its config is 2 slices on disks c3t0d0 and c3t1d0, but the zpool config data reckons it's really using c2t1d0 instead of c3t0d0. Looking at the output from zdb -l /dev/dsk/c3t0d0s0 I can clearly see that there is a path field which is incorrect. How do I change this field to reflect reality? Is there some way I can force-import the pool and get that mapping changed? (zpool import -f soundandvision fails with invalid vdev configuration). LABEL 0 version=9 name='soundandvision' state=1 txg=2247550 pool_guid=7968359165854648625 hostid=226162178 hostname='farnarkle' top_guid=4672721547114476840 guid=9244482965678353940 vdev_tree type='mirror' id=0 guid=4672721547114476840 metaslab_array=14 metaslab_shift=30 ashift=9 asize=199968161792 is_log=0 children[0] type='disk' id=0 guid=15422701819531588989 path='/dev/dsk/c2t1d0s0' devid='id1,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a' phys_path='/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci108e,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:a' whole_disk=0 DTL=85 children[1] type='disk' id=1 guid=9244482965678353940 path='/dev/dsk/c3t0d0s0' devid='id1,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a' phys_path='/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci108e,[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:a' whole_disk=0 DTL=84 Thankyou in advance, 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
[zfs-discuss] Expanding a RAIDZ based Pool...
Hi, I've seen/read a number of articles on the net, about RAIDZ - and things like Dynamic Striping et'al. I know roughly how this works - but I can't seem to get to the bottom of expanding existing pool space, if this is even possible. e.g. If I build a RAIDZ pool with 5 * 400Gb drives, and later add a 6th 400Gb drive to this pool, will its space instantly be available to volumes using that pool? (I can't quite see this working myself) Other articles, talk about replacing one drive at a time, letting it re-silver, and at the end when the last drive is replaced, the space available to volumes will reflect the new pool size (i.e. replace each 400Gb device in turn with a 750Gb device - when the last one is done, you'll have a 5 * 750Gb pool with all the space (minus RAIDZ overhead) being available). I know I can add additional RAIDZ pools to the volume - but that's only any good for adding numbers of multiple drives, not singles (if you want to continue fault tolerance). Thanks, -Karl ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a RAIDZ based Pool...
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:59:22PM +, Karl Pielorz wrote: e.g. If I build a RAIDZ pool with 5 * 400Gb drives, and later add a 6th 400Gb drive to this pool, will its space instantly be available to volumes using that pool? (I can't quite see this working myself) Hi Karl, You can't currently expand the width of a RAID-Z stripe. It has been considered, but implementing that would require a fairly substantial change in the way RAID-Z works. Sun's current ZFS priorities are elsewhere, but there's nothing preventing an interested member of the community from undertaking this project... Adam -- Adam Leventhal, FishWorkshttp://blogs.sun.com/ahl ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Performance writing to USB drive, performance reporting
USB2 giving you ~30MB/s is normal... a little better than mine (on Windows - ~25MB/s) actually. For better performance better switch to eSATA or Firewire. Even FW400 will give you better results than USB as there are lesser overheads. However, I'm sure I saw some FW+ZFS related bug in bugdb sometime ago. Please check. 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 with Memory Sticks
I did some work over the weekend. Still is having some trouble. # fdisk -E /dev/rdsk/c7t0d0s2 # zpool create Radical-Vol /dev/dsk/c7t0d0 invalid vdev specification use '-f' to override the following errors: /dev/dsk/c7t0d0s0 is part of exported or potentially active ZFS pool Radical-Vol. Please see zpool(1M). /dev/dsk/c7t0d0s2 is part of exported or potentially active ZFS pool Radical-Vol. Please see zpool(1M). # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/dsk/c7t0d0s2 bs=1 write: No such device or address 8200604161+0 records in 8200604161+0 records out # fdisk -E /dev/rdsk/c7t0d0s2 # zpool create Radical-Vol /dev/dsk/c7t0d0 cannot label 'c7t0d0': failed to write EFI label use fdisk(1M) to partition the disk, and provide a specific slice # Basically after doing an fdisk -E, I couldn't create pool Radical-Vol. So I decided to zero the whole device and start from scratch. Now I have a different error, zpool couldn't write the EFI label. It wants an fdisk partition, but as far as I know, once I do this it will be specific for Sparc and X86. Any other suggestions? Thanks, Paul ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance considerations (Linux vs Solaris)
Ok, i have proposed, so, i'm trying to implement it. :) I hope you can (at least) criticizing it. :)) The document is here: http://www.posix.brte.com.br/blog/?p=89 It is not complete, i'm running some tests yet, and analyzing the results. But i think you can look and contribute with tome thoughts already. It was nice to see the write performance for the iSCSI protocol and the NFSv3. Why iSCSI was much better? Why the read performance was the same? All guarantees that i have with NFS i have with iSCSI? Please, comment it! Thanks a lot for your time! 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] Does ZFS handle a SATA II port multiplier ?
Apparently I spent more than my brain wanted me to believe. Here is what I picked up. Even though I am over the 1 meter limit on SATAII, it worked great. http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sata_enclosures/scsat84xb.asp Eric 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] Backup in general (was Does ZFS handle a SATA II ' port multiplier' ?)
If you care enough to do backups, at least care enough to be able to restore. For my home backups, I use portable drives with copies=2 or 3 and compression enabled. I don't fool with incrementals, but many people do. The failure mode I'm worried about is decay, as the drives will be off most of the time. The copies feature works well for this failure mode. I am definitely and strongly interested in restoring! That's why I hate my previous backup solutions so much (NTI backup and then Acronis True Image); I verified backups and tested restores, and had *FAR* too much trouble to be at all comfortable. The photos and the ebooks are backed up eventually (but not always within the month) to good DVDs, and one copy is kept off-site, and that's the stuff I'd miss most if it went, but I want a good *overall* solution. The copies thing sounds familiar from discussion here...ah. Yes, that's exactly perfect; it lets me make up a batch of miscellaneous spare disks totaling enough space, each one a vdev, put them into one pool (no redundancy), but with copies=2 get nearly the redundancy of mirroring which would have required matching drives. At least, if I From what I have seen I think you are over estimating the value of copies=x. copies=X are guaranteed to store multiple copies (X) of the blocks _somewhere_ in the pool, but not necessarily on different disks. So while you may gain mirror like protection when you have failed blocks on a disk (maybe -- blocks could be too close together on the same disk); you do not necessarily gain that from a failed disk (block copies could be on only one disk). Having different sized unprotected disks and using copies=N has less mirror like effect over time and fragmentation of those disks. http://blogs.sun.com/bill/entry/ditto_blocks_the_amazing_tape http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_copies_and_data_protection copies mirrors. find a solution for connecting that bunch of disks conveniently. I really want one box with easily swappable disks, and one cable. (And then two of them, since of course I need two sets of backup media to alternate between.) And I could update the old full backup to become the new one using rsync locally, perhaps much faster than doing a full CP. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
Hello Jorgen, Monday, December 10, 2007, 5:53:31 AM, you wrote: JL Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Jorgen, Honestly - I don't think zfs is a good solution to your problem. What you could try to do however when it comes to x4500 is: 1. Use SVM+UFS+user quotas JL I am now trying zfs -V 1Tb and newfs'ed ufs on that device. This looks JL like a potential solution at least. Even appears that I am allowed to JL enable compression on the volume. JL Thanks I don't know... while it will work I'm not sure I would trust it. Maybe just use Solaris Volume Manager with Soft Partitioning + UFS and forget about ZFS in your case? -- 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup in general (was Does ZFS handle a SATA II ' port multiplier' ?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you care enough to do backups, at least care enough to be able to restore. For my home backups, I use portable drives with copies=2 or 3 and compression enabled. I don't fool with incrementals, but many people do. The failure mode I'm worried about is decay, as the drives will be off most of the time. The copies feature works well for this failure mode. I am definitely and strongly interested in restoring! That's why I hate my previous backup solutions so much (NTI backup and then Acronis True Image); I verified backups and tested restores, and had *FAR* too much trouble to be at all comfortable. The photos and the ebooks are backed up eventually (but not always within the month) to good DVDs, and one copy is kept off-site, and that's the stuff I'd miss most if it went, but I want a good *overall* solution. The copies thing sounds familiar from discussion here...ah. Yes, that's exactly perfect; it lets me make up a batch of miscellaneous spare disks totaling enough space, each one a vdev, put them into one pool (no redundancy), but with copies=2 get nearly the redundancy of mirroring which would have required matching drives. At least, if I From what I have seen I think you are over estimating the value of copies=x. copies=X are guaranteed to store multiple copies (X) of the blocks _somewhere_ in the pool, but not necessarily on different disks. So while you may gain mirror like protection when you have failed blocks on a disk (maybe -- blocks could be too close together on the same disk); you do not necessarily gain that from a failed disk (block copies could be on only one disk). Having different sized unprotected disks and using copies=N has less mirror like effect over time and fragmentation of those disks. http://blogs.sun.com/bill/entry/ditto_blocks_the_amazing_tape http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_copies_and_data_protection Yes, that's quite clear even just from the man page. That's why I said nearly; I understand that copies mirrors, as you put it. Not *necessarily* on different disks, but it *tries* to put it on different disks. Over time isn't necessarily an issue, since a new full backup could be done into a clean filesystem. -- David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS
Hello can, Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote: cyg and it made them slower cyg That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at cyg least have to describe *how* you measured this even if the cyg detailed results of those measurements may be lost in the mists of time. cyg So far you don't really have much of a position to defend at cyg all: rather, you sound like a lot of the disgruntled TOPS users cyg of that era. Not that they didn't have good reasons to feel cyg disgruntled - but they frequently weren't very careful about aiming their ire accurately. cyg Given that RMS really was *capable* of coming very close to the cyg performance capabilities of the underlying hardware, your cyg allegations just don't ring true. Not being able to jump into And where is your proof that it was capable of coming very close to the...? Let me use your own words: In other words, you've got nothing, but you'd like people to believe it's something. The phrase Put up or shut up comes to mind. Where are your proofs on some of your claims about ZFS? Where are your detailed concepts how to solve some ZFS issues (imagined or not)? Demand nothing less from yourself than you demand from others. Bill, to be honest I don't understand you - you wrote I have no interest in working on it myself. So what is your interest here? The way you respond to people is offensive some times (don't bother to say that they deserve it... it's just your opinion) and your attitude from time to time is of a guru who knows everything but doesn't actually deliver anything. So, except that you fighting ZFS everywhere you can, you don't want to contribute to ZFS - what you want then? You seem like a guy with a quite good technical background (just an impression) who wants to contribute something but doesn't know exactly what... Maybe you should try to focus that knowledge a little bit more and get something useful out of it instead of writing long essays which doesn't contribute much (not that this reply isn't long :)) I'm not being malicious here - I'm genuinely interested in what's your agenda. I don't blame other people accusing you of trolling. No offense intended. :) -- Best regards, Robert Milkowski mailto:[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] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
I don't know... while it will work I'm not sure I would trust it. Maybe just use Solaris Volume Manager with Soft Partitioning + UFS and forget about ZFS in your case? Well, the idea was to see if it could replace the existing NetApps as that was what Jonathan promised it could do, and we do use snapshots on the NetApps, so having zfs snapshots would be attractive, as well as easy to grow the file-system as needed. (Although, perhaps I can growfs with SVM as well.) You may be correct about the trust issue though. copied over a small volume from the netapp: Filesystem size used avail capacity Mounted on 1.0T 8.7G 1005G 1%/export/vol1 NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT zpool1 20.8T 5.00G 20.8T 0% ONLINE - So copied 8.7Gb, to compressed volume takes up 5Gb. That is quite nice. Enable the same quotas for users, then run quotacheck: [snip] #282759fixed: files 0 - 4939 blocks 0 - 95888 #282859fixed: files 0 - 9 blocks 0 - 144 Read from remote host x4500-test: Operation timed out Connection to x4500-test closed. and it has not come back, so not a panic, just a complete hang. I'll have to get NOC staff to go power cycle it. We are bending over backwards trying to get the x4500 to work in a simple NAS design, but honestly, the x4500 is not a NAS. Nor can it compete with NetApps. As a Unix server with lots of disks, it is very nice. Perhaps one day it can mind you, it just is not there today. -- Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Faulted raidz1 shows the same device twice ?!?
zpool status shows: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM external DEGRADED 0 0 0 raidz1 DEGRADED 0 0 0 c18t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c18t0d0 FAULTED 0 0 0 corrupted data I used to have a normal raidz1 with devices c18t0d0 and c19t0d0 but c19t0d0 broke. So, I plugged a new drive in its slot. But attach and replace give errors: # zpool replace external c19t0d0 cannot replace c19t0d0 with c19t0d0: no such device in pool # zpool attach external c18t0d0 c19t0d0 cannot attach c19t0d0 to c18t0d0: can only attach to mirrors and top-level disks Why does zpool status show the same drive twice? How can I clear the fault and attach a new good drive in c19t0d0? Any help appreciated, - Jeff 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] Backup in general (was Does ZFS handle a SATA II '
Tape drives and tapes seem to be just too expensive. Am I out of date here? No, I don't think so. The problem is that the low-end tape market has mostly vanished as CDs/DVDs/disks get cheaper -- not that it should, because tape is much more reliable -- so the cost of entry is pretty high. I use AIT-1 tapes at home, which give me about 35 GB/tape, but I'd be a lot happier with AIT-3 (100 GB/tape). The tapes are reasonably affordable; unfortunately, the drives are priced for small business, not for home use. What would I need to buy to back up a system that currently has about 600GB of data in it, growing a few GB a month on average? I'd probably back up everything onto two large (750 GB or 1 TB) external drives, each kept off-site at a different location. (Being paranoid, I'd also likely want at least one tape backup, but the initial full backup would take a long time) Also, what *software* does one use? For a full, and for an incremental? I've heard of Amanda but haven't used it. I suppose there are other open-source backup solutions. I use commercial backup software, myself. ZFS can give me a view equivalent to an incremental, can't it? Which I could then copy somewhere suitable? Hmmm. I don't think it exposes such a view right now, though at first glance it wouldn't be too hard -- along with a snapshot, you could have a 'snapdiff' view, which would only expose the files which had changed since a previous snapshot. I think that would be pretty straightforward to implement Anton 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] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
Hello All; While sometimes not possible, ZFS+Thumper solution is not so far away from replacing expensive to buy and own NetApp like equipment. What people can sometimes forget is Thumper and Solaris are general purpose products that can be spcialized with some efforts. We had some cases where we had to fine tune X4500 and ZFS for more stability or performance. At the end of the day the benefits well worth the efforts. Best regards Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorgen Lundman Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:22 AM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas. I don't know... while it will work I'm not sure I would trust it. Maybe just use Solaris Volume Manager with Soft Partitioning + UFS and forget about ZFS in your case? Well, the idea was to see if it could replace the existing NetApps as that was what Jonathan promised it could do, and we do use snapshots on the NetApps, so having zfs snapshots would be attractive, as well as easy to grow the file-system as needed. (Although, perhaps I can growfs with SVM as well.) You may be correct about the trust issue though. copied over a small volume from the netapp: Filesystem size used avail capacity Mounted on 1.0T 8.7G 1005G 1%/export/vol1 NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT zpool1 20.8T 5.00G 20.8T 0% ONLINE - So copied 8.7Gb, to compressed volume takes up 5Gb. That is quite nice. Enable the same quotas for users, then run quotacheck: [snip] #282759fixed: files 0 - 4939 blocks 0 - 95888 #282859fixed: files 0 - 9 blocks 0 - 144 Read from remote host x4500-test: Operation timed out Connection to x4500-test closed. and it has not come back, so not a panic, just a complete hang. I'll have to get NOC staff to go power cycle it. We are bending over backwards trying to get the x4500 to work in a simple NAS design, but honestly, the x4500 is not a NAS. Nor can it compete with NetApps. As a Unix server with lots of disks, it is very nice. Perhaps one day it can mind you, it just is not there today. -- Jorgen Lundman | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ 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
