Re: [zfs-discuss] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile
I'm running nv126 XvM right now. I haven't tried it without XvM. Without XvM we do not see these issues. We're running the VMs through NFS now (using ESXi)... -- 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 on JBOD storage, mpt driver issue - server not responding
Have you tried wrapping your disks inside LVM metadevices and then used those for your ZFS pool? -- 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 on JBOD storage, mpt driver issue - server not responding
What type of disks are you using? -- 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 on JBOD storage, mpt driver issue - server not responding
I was just looking to see if it is a known problem before I submit it as a bug. What would be the best category to submit the bug under? I am not sure if it is driver/kernel issue. I would be more than glad to help. One of the machines is a test environment and I can run any dumps/debug versions you want. The issue is reproducible on the two servers Sun and Dell and with different SAS JBOD storage. The systems consist of raidz2 pool, made from 11 SATA large disks (1.5TB Seagate). The pool is 60% or so full. The easiest way to reproduce it is when running bacula client to back the whole pool overnight. After couple of hours the issue will manifest. The machine will just print these messages and not respond to any connections, even keyboard. I was looking into one other machine that we have – a relatively old custom build machine with 11 1TB (Western Digital) disks connected to 8 port SATA controller (+3 from the motherboard). I noticed that there are similar messages for the disks there. The machine doesn’t lock, just prints the messages when under heavy load (backup), see bellow: Operating System: Solaris 10 8/07 s10x_u4wos_12b X86 Adapter: 8 port SATA: http://www.supermicro.com/products/accessories/addon/AOC-SAT2-MV8.cfm Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror port 1: link lost Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror port 1: link established Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror marvell88sx: [ID 812950 kern.warning] WARNING: marvell88sx0: error on port 1: Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror marvell88sx: [ID 517869 kern.info] device disconnected Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror marvell88sx: [ID 517869 kern.info] device connected Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6/d...@1,0 (sd2): Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror Error for Command: read(10)Error Level: Retryable Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice]Requested Block: 178328863 Error Block: 178328863 Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice]Vendor: ATA Serial Number: Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice]Sense Key: No Additional Sense Oct 21 17:47:22 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice]ASC: 0x0 (no additional sense info), ASCQ: 0x0, FRU: 0x0 Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror port 0: device reset Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror port 0: device reset Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror port 0: link lost Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror port 0: link established Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror marvell88sx: [ID 812950 kern.warning] WARNING: marvell88sx0: error on port 0: Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror marvell88sx: [ID 517869 kern.info] device disconnected Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror marvell88sx: [ID 517869 kern.info] device connected Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6/d...@0,0 (sd1): Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror Error for Command: read(10)Error Level: Retryable Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice]Requested Block: 929071121 Error Block: 929071121 Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice]Vendor: ATA Serial Number: Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice]Sense Key: No Additional Sense Oct 21 17:58:51 mirror scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice]ASC: 0x0 (no additional sense info), ASCQ: 0x0, FRU: 0x0 Oct 21 18:02:10 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 21 18:02:10 mirror port 4: device reset Oct 21 18:02:10 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 21 18:02:10 mirror port 4: device reset Oct 21 18:02:10 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 29 00:03:24 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 29 00:03:24 mirror port 5: device reset Oct 29 00:03:24 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 29 00:03:24 mirror port 5: device reset Oct 29 00:03:24 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 29 00:03:24 mirror port 5: link lost Oct 29 00:03:24 mirror sata: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: /p...@0,0/pci10de,2...@10/pci11ab,1...@6: Oct 29 00:03:24
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs eradication
Miles Nordin wrote: djm == Darren J Moffat darr...@opensolaris.org writes: encrypted blocks is much better, even though encrypted blocks may be subject to freeze-spray attack if the whole computer is compromised the idea of crypto deletion is to use many keys to encrypt the drive, and encrypt keys with other keys. When you want to delete something, forget the key that encrypted it. Yes I know, remember I designed ZFS crypto and this is exactly one of the use case. djm Much better for jurisdictions that allow for that, but not all djm do. I know of at least one that wants even ciphertext blocks djm to overwritten. The appropriate answer depends when do they want it done, though. Do they want it done continuously while the machine is running whenever someone rm's something? Or is it about ``losing'' the data, about media containing encrypted blocks passing outside the campus, or just not knowing where something physically is at all times? I'm not in a position to discuss this jurisdictions requirements and rationale on a public mailing list. All I'm saying is that data destruction base only on key destruction/unavailability is not considered enough in some cases. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on JBOD storage, mpt driver issue - server not responding
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:25 PM, James C. McPherson j...@opensolaris.orgwrote: The first step towards acknowledging that there is a problem is you logging a bug in bugs.opensolaris.org. If you don't, we don't know that there might be a problem outside of the ones that we identify. I apologize if I offended by not knowing the protocol. I thought that posting in the forums was watched and the bug tracker updated by people at Sun. I didn't think normal users had access to submit bugs. Thank you for the reply. I have submitted a bug on the issue with all the information I think might be useful. If someone at Sun would like more information, output from commands, or testing, I would be happy to help. I was not provided with a bug number by the system. I assume that those are given out if the bug is deemed worthy of further consideration. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on JBOD storage, mpt driver issue - server not responding
I submitted a bug on this issue, it looks like you can reference other bugs when you submit one, so everyone having this issue could possibly link mine and submit their own hardware config. It sounds like it's widespread though, so I'm not sure if that would help or hinder. I'd hate to bury the developers/QA team under a mountain of duplicate requests. CR 6900767 -- 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 on JBOD storage, mpt driver issue - server not responding
What type of disks are you using? I'm using SATA disks with SAS-SATA breakout cables. I've tried different cables as I have a couple spares. mpt0 has 4x1.5TB Samsung Green drives. mpt1 has 4x400GB Seagate 7200 RPM drives. I get errors from both adapters. Each adapter has an unused SAS channel available. If I can get this fixed, I'm planning to populate those as well. -- 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 on JBOD storage, mpt driver issue - server not responding
Have you tried wrapping your disks inside LVM metadevices and then used those for your ZFS pool? I have not tried that. I could try it with my spare disks I suppose. I avoided LVM as it didn't seem to offer me anything ZFS/ZPOOL didn't. -- 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] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile
I'm running nv126 XvM right now. I haven't tried it without XvM. Without XvM we do not see these issues. We're running the VMs through NFS now (using ESXi)... Interesting. It sounds like it might be an XvM specific bug. I'm glad I mentioned that in my bug report to Sun. Hopefully they can duplicate it. I'd like to stick with XvM as I've spent a fair amount of time getting things working well under it. How did your migration to ESXi go? Are you using it on the same hardware or did you just switch that server to an NFS server and run the VMs on another box? -- 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 send from solaris 10/08 to zfs receive on solaris 10/09
I built a fileserver on solaris 10u6 (10/08) intending to back it up to another server via zfs send | ssh othermachine 'zfs receive' However, the new server is too new for 10u6 (10/08) and requires a later version of solaris . presently available is 10u8 (10/09) Is it crazy for me to try the send/receive with these two different versions of OSes? Is it possible the underlying ZFS's would be compatible? Is there any way for me to know? Thanks for the help. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send from solaris 10/08 to zfs receive on solaris 10/09
On Thu, November 12, 2009 13:36, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: I built a fileserver on solaris 10u6 (10/08) intending to back it up to another server via zfs send | ssh othermachine 'zfs receive' However, the new server is too new for 10u6 (10/08) and requires a later version of solaris . presently available is 10u8 (10/09) Is it crazy for me to try the send/receive with these two different versions of OSes? It says at the end of the zfs send section of the man page The format of the stream is committed. You will be able to receive your streams on future versions of ZFS. That would seem to be a rather strong general commitment. That makes it IMHO at least worth experimenting with the case you need, see if it accepts the stream. It should, according to the man page. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; 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] zfs send from solaris 10/08 to zfs receive on solaris 10/09
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Thu, November 12, 2009 13:36, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: I built a fileserver on solaris 10u6 (10/08) intending to back it up to another server via zfs send | ssh othermachine 'zfs receive' However, the new server is too new for 10u6 (10/08) and requires a later version of solaris . presently available is 10u8 (10/09) Is it crazy for me to try the send/receive with these two different versions of OSes? It says at the end of the zfs send section of the man page The format of the stream is committed. You will be able to receive your streams on future versions of ZFS. That would seem to be a rather strong general commitment. That makes it IMHO at least worth experimenting with the case you need, see if it accepts the stream. It should, according to the man page. Like so many other things in Solaris, older revs of ZFS are supported in newer releases of Solaris. :-) When you create a zfs filesystem on a version of Solaris, by default it is created by the latest ZFS fs version that version of Solaris supports. HOWEVER, you can explicitly create a zfs filesystem with a backrev version, and it works fine (you just don't get the latest features). Look at the ZFS man page for creating a filesystem with a version other than the default. This works for 'zfs send|receive', with this caveaut: the receiving filesytem will be created with the zfs filesystem version of the SENDER. So, it's possible to send/receive a ZFS filesystem from a OLDER version of Solaris to a NEWER version, but NOT vice versa (unless the zfs filesystem on the newer Solaris was explicitly created with a backrev version that the older Solaris understands). An example: (and, I'm sure I don't have the ZFS version numbers right, so check the man pages) Say 10u6 supports ZFS version 10, and 10u8 support ZFS version 12. By default, a 10u6 machine creates v10 ZFS filesystems, and 10u8 creates v12 filesystems. But, a 10u8 systems can also create v10 filesystems. So, you can send a 10u6 ZFS filesystem to a 10u8 machine, resulting in creating a new v10 filesystem on the 10u8 machine. However, you can't send a v12 filesystem from the 10u8 machine to the 10u6 machine. If you explicitly create a v10 filesystem on the 10u8 machine, you can send that filesystem to the 10u6 machine. I hope that's clear. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zpool not growing after drive upgrade
So I've finally finished swapping out my old 300GB drives. The end result is one large raidz2 pool. 10+2 with one hot spare. The drives are: 7x500GB 4x1TB 2x1.5TB One of the 1.5TB is the hot spare. zpool list is still showing capacity of 3.25TB (the 1TB drives replaced 300GB drives). I've tried exporting and importing the pool, and it doesn't make a difference. NAMESIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT fserv 3.25T 2.73T 532G84% ONLINE - --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs eradication
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, David Magda wrote: There seem to be 'secure erase' methods available for some SSDs: Unless the hardware and firmware of these devices has been inspected and validated by a certified third party which is well-versed in such analaysis, I would not trust such devices with significant phrases like tritium core. Some secrets are very great and should not be trusted to a marketing department. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] dedupe question
Got some out-of-curiosity questions for the gurus if they have time to answer: Isn't dedupe in some ways the antithesis of setting copies 1? We go to a lot of trouble to create redundancy (n-way mirroring, raidz-n, copies=n, etc) to make things as robust as possible and then we reduce redundancy with dedupe and compression :-). What would be the difference in MTTDL between a scenario where dedupe ratio is exactly two and you've set copies=2 vs. no dedupe and copies=1? Intuitively MTTDL would be better because of the copies=2, but you'd lose twice the data when DL eventually happens. Similarly, if hypothetically dedupe ratio = 1.5 and you have a two-way mirror, vs. no dedupe and a 3 disk raidz1, which would be more reliable? Again intuition says the mirror because there's one less device to fail, but device failure isn't the only consideration. In both cases it sounds like you might gain a bit in performance, especially if the dedupe ratio is high because you don't have to write the actual duplicated blocks on a write and on a read you are more likely to have the data blocks in cache. Does this make sense? Maybe there are too many variables, but it would be so interesting to hear of possible decision making algorithms. A similar discussion applies to compression, although that seems to defeat redundancy more directly. This analysis requires good statistical maths skills! Thanks -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool not growing after drive upgrade
Hi Tim, In a pool with mixed disk sizes, ZFS can use only the amount of disk space that is equal to the smallest disk and spares aren't included in pool size until they are used. In your RAIDZ-2 pool, this is equivalent to 10 500 GB disks, which should be about 5 TBs. I think you are running a current Nevada release. Did you try setting the autoexpand property to on? See the example below, I created a RAIDZ-2 pool with 2 68 GB disks and 1 136 GB disk. I replaced the 2 68 GB disks with 2 136 GB disks and set autoexpand to on. My pool space increased from 204 GB to 410 GB on Nevada, build 127, which sounds about right. The autoexpand property integrated into build 117. Cindy # zpool create test raidz2 c2t2d0 c2t3d0 c0t5d0 invalid vdev specification use '-f' to override the following errors: raidz contains devices of different sizes # zpool create -f test raidz2 c2t2d0 c2t3d0 c0t5d0 # zpool list test NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT test 204G 286K 204G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool replace test c2t2d0 c0t6d0 # zpool replace test c2t3d0 c0t7d0 # zpool list test NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT test 204G 464K 204G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool set autoexpand=on test # zpool list test NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT test 410G 423K 410G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - On 11/12/09 14:10, Tim Cook wrote: So I've finally finished swapping out my old 300GB drives. The end result is one large raidz2 pool. 10+2 with one hot spare. The drives are: 7x500GB 4x1TB 2x1.5TB One of the 1.5TB is the hot spare. zpool list is still showing capacity of 3.25TB (the 1TB drives replaced 300GB drives). I've tried exporting and importing the pool, and it doesn't make a difference. NAMESIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT fserv 3.25T 2.73T 532G84% ONLINE - --Tim ___ 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] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile
Travis Tabbal wrote: I'm running nv126 XvM right now. I haven't tried it without XvM. Without XvM we do not see these issues. We're running the VMs through NFS now (using ESXi)... Interesting. It sounds like it might be an XvM specific bug. I'm glad I mentioned that in my bug report to Sun. Hopefully they can duplicate it. I'd like to stick with XvM as I've spent a fair amount of time getting things working well under it. How did your migration to ESXi go? Are you using it on the same hardware or did you just switch that server to an NFS server and run the VMs on another box? Hi Travis, your bug showed up - it's 6900767. Since bugs.opensolaris.org isn't a live system, you won't be able to see it at http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6900767 until tomorrow. cheers, 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool not growing after drive upgrade
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@sun.comwrote: Hi Tim, In a pool with mixed disk sizes, ZFS can use only the amount of disk space that is equal to the smallest disk and spares aren't included in pool size until they are used. In your RAIDZ-2 pool, this is equivalent to 10 500 GB disks, which should be about 5 TBs. I think you are running a current Nevada release. Did you try setting the autoexpand property to on? See the example below, I created a RAIDZ-2 pool with 2 68 GB disks and 1 136 GB disk. I replaced the 2 68 GB disks with 2 136 GB disks and set autoexpand to on. My pool space increased from 204 GB to 410 GB on Nevada, build 127, which sounds about right. The autoexpand property integrated into build 117. Cindy # zpool create test raidz2 c2t2d0 c2t3d0 c0t5d0 invalid vdev specification use '-f' to override the following errors: raidz contains devices of different sizes # zpool create -f test raidz2 c2t2d0 c2t3d0 c0t5d0 # zpool list test NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT test 204G 286K 204G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool replace test c2t2d0 c0t6d0 # zpool replace test c2t3d0 c0t7d0 # zpool list test NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT test 204G 464K 204G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool set autoexpand=on test # zpool list test NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT test 410G 423K 410G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - That did it, thank you. Didn't the pools expand automatically on an export/import before, or am I crazy? I swore that's all I had to do last time. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool not growing after drive upgrade
Previous behavior was hard to predict. :-) It worked for a while, then a bug prevented it from working so that you had to export/import the pool to see the expanded space. The export/import thing was a temporary workaround until the autoexpand features integrated. cs On 11/12/09 15:23, Tim Cook wrote: On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@sun.com mailto:cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote: Hi Tim, In a pool with mixed disk sizes, ZFS can use only the amount of disk space that is equal to the smallest disk and spares aren't included in pool size until they are used. In your RAIDZ-2 pool, this is equivalent to 10 500 GB disks, which should be about 5 TBs. I think you are running a current Nevada release. Did you try setting the autoexpand property to on? See the example below, I created a RAIDZ-2 pool with 2 68 GB disks and 1 136 GB disk. I replaced the 2 68 GB disks with 2 136 GB disks and set autoexpand to on. My pool space increased from 204 GB to 410 GB on Nevada, build 127, which sounds about right. The autoexpand property integrated into build 117. Cindy # zpool create test raidz2 c2t2d0 c2t3d0 c0t5d0 invalid vdev specification use '-f' to override the following errors: raidz contains devices of different sizes # zpool create -f test raidz2 c2t2d0 c2t3d0 c0t5d0 # zpool list test NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT test 204G 286K 204G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool replace test c2t2d0 c0t6d0 # zpool replace test c2t3d0 c0t7d0 # zpool list test NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT test 204G 464K 204G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool set autoexpand=on test # zpool list test NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT test 410G 423K 410G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - That did it, thank you. Didn't the pools expand automatically on an export/import before, or am I crazy? I swore that's all I had to do last time. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send from solaris 10/08 to zfs receive on solaris 10/09
*snip* I hope that's clear. Yes, perfectly clear, and very helpful. Thank you very much. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] dedupe question
On Nov 12, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Frank Middleton wrote: Got some out-of-curiosity questions for the gurus if they have time to answer: Isn't dedupe in some ways the antithesis of setting copies 1? We go to a lot of trouble to create redundancy (n-way mirroring, raidz-n, copies=n, etc) to make things as robust as possible and then we reduce redundancy with dedupe and compression :-). What would be the difference in MTTDL between a scenario where dedupe ratio is exactly two and you've set copies=2 vs. no dedupe and copies=1? Intuitively MTTDL would be better because of the copies=2, but you'd lose twice the data when DL eventually happens. The MTTDL models I've used consider any loss a complete loss. But there are some interesting wrinkles to explore here... :-) Similarly, if hypothetically dedupe ratio = 1.5 and you have a two-way mirror, vs. no dedupe and a 3 disk raidz1, which would be more reliable? Again intuition says the mirror because there's one less device to fail, but device failure isn't the only consideration. In both cases it sounds like you might gain a bit in performance, especially if the dedupe ratio is high because you don't have to write the actual duplicated blocks on a write and on a read you are more likely to have the data blocks in cache. Does this make sense? Maybe there are too many variables, but it would be so interesting to hear of possible decision making algorithms. A similar discussion applies to compression, although that seems to defeat redundancy more directly. This analysis requires good statistical maths skills! There are several dimensions here. But I'm not yet convinced there is a configuration decision point to consume a more detailed analysis. In other words, if you could decide between two or more possible configurations, what would you wish to consider to improve the outcome? Thoughts? -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send from solaris 10/08 to zfs receive on solaris 10/09
On 12 Nov 2009, at 19:54, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote: On Thu, November 12, 2009 13:36, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: I built a fileserver on solaris 10u6 (10/08) intending to back it up to another server via zfs send | ssh othermachine 'zfs receive' However, the new server is too new for 10u6 (10/08) and requires a later version of solaris . presently available is 10u8 (10/09) Is it crazy for me to try the send/receive with these two different versions of OSes? It says at the end of the zfs send section of the man page The format of the stream is committed. You will be able to receive your streams on future versions of ZFS. 'Twas not always so. It used to say The format of the stream is evolving. No backwards compatibility is guaranteed. You may not be able to receive your streams on future versions of ZFS. See http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+on/2008042301 However, the above states that you're ok within Solaris 10 (which got a usable ZFS quite late in the day - you were very brave if you used the s10u3 implementation), and I've only fallen foul of the issue with old Nevada and OpenSolaris versions. That would seem to be a rather strong general commitment. That makes it IMHO at least worth experimenting with the case you need, see if it accepts the stream. It should, according to the man page. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; 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 On 12 Nov 2009, at 19:54, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote: On Thu, November 12, 2009 13:36, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: I built a fileserver on solaris 10u6 (10/08) intending to back it up to another server via zfs send | ssh othermachine 'zfs receive' However, the new server is too new for 10u6 (10/08) and requires a later version of solaris . presently available is 10u8 (10/09) Is it crazy for me to try the send/receive with these two different versions of OSes? It says at the end of the zfs send section of the man page The format of the stream is committed. You will be able to receive your streams on future versions of ZFS. Twas not always so. It used to say http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+on/2008042301 That would seem to be a rather strong general commitment. That makes it IMHO at least worth experimenting with the case you need, see if it accepts the stream. It should, according to the man page. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
