Re: [zfs-discuss] Server upgrade
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > Is there an upgrade path from (I think I'm running Solaris Express) to > something modern? (That could be an Oracle distribution, or the free There *was* an upgrade path from snv_134 to snv_151a (Solaris 11 Express) but I don't know if Oracle still supports it. There was an intermediate step or two along the way (snv_134b I think?) to move from OpenSolaris to Oracle Solaris. As others mentioned, you could jump to OpenIndiana from your current version. You may not be able to move between OI and S11 in the future, so it's a somewhat important decision. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Server upgrade
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: While I'm not in need of upgrading my server at an emergency level, I'm starting to think about it -- to be prepared (and an upgrade could be triggered by a failure at this point; my server dates to 2006). One of my most vital servers is a Netra 150 dating from 1997 - still going strong, crammed with 12 x 300 Gb disks and running Solaris 9. I think one ought to have more faith in Sun hardware. Andy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Server upgrade
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: version fits my needs for example.) Upgrading might perhaps save me from changing all the user passwords (half a dozen, not a huge problem) and software packages I've added. (uname -a says "SunOS fsfs 5.11 snv_134 i86pc i386 i86pc"). Or should I just export my pool and do a from-scratch install of something? (Then recreate the users and install any missing software. I've got some cron jobs, too.) I have read (on the OpenIndiana site) that there is an upgrade path from what you have to OpenIndiana. They describe the procedure to use. OpenIndiana does not yet include encryption support in zfs since encryption support was never released into OpenSolaris. If I was you, I would try the upgrade to OpenIndiana first. The alternative is paid and supported Oracle Solaris 11, which would require a from-scratch install, and may or may not even be an option for you. 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] Server upgrade
On 15/02/2012 17:16, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: While I'm not in need of upgrading my server at an emergency level, I'm starting to think about it -- to be prepared (and an upgrade could be triggered by a failure at this point; my server dates to 2006). I'm actually more concerned with software than hardware. My load is small, the current hardware is handling it no problem. I don't see myself as a candidate for dedup, so I don't need to add huge quantities of RAM. I'm handling compression on backups just fine (the USB external disks are the choke-point, so compression actually speeds up the backups). I'd like to be on a current software stream that I can easily update with bug-fixes and new features. The way I used to do that got broke in the Oracle takeover. I'm interested in encryption for my backups, if that's functional (and safe) in current software versions. I take copies off-site, so that's a useful precaution. Whatever I do, I'll of course make sure my backups are ALL up-to-date and at least one is back off-site before I do anything drastic. Is there an upgrade path from (I think I'm running Solaris Express) to something modern? (That could be an Oracle distribution, or the free software fork, or some Nexenta distribution; my current data pool is 1.8T, and I don't expect it to grow terribly fast, so the fully-featured free version fits my needs for example.) Upgrading might perhaps save me from changing all the user passwords (half a dozen, not a huge problem) and software packages I've added. (uname -a says "SunOS fsfs 5.11 snv_134 i86pc i386 i86pc"). so this is the last opensoalris release ( ie not Solaris express ) S11 express was build 151, this is older again. Not sure if there is an upgrade path to express from opensolaris. I don't think there is. And S11 itself is now the latest, it's based off build 175b. There is an upgrade patch from Express to S11, but not from opensolaris to Express if I remember correctly. Or should I just export my pool and do a from-scratch install of something? (Then recreate the users and install any missing software. I've got some cron jobs, too.) AND, what "something" should I upgrade to or install? I've tried a couple of times to figure out the alternatives and it's never really clear to me what my good options are. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Server upgrade
While I'm not in need of upgrading my server at an emergency level, I'm starting to think about it -- to be prepared (and an upgrade could be triggered by a failure at this point; my server dates to 2006). I'm actually more concerned with software than hardware. My load is small, the current hardware is handling it no problem. I don't see myself as a candidate for dedup, so I don't need to add huge quantities of RAM. I'm handling compression on backups just fine (the USB external disks are the choke-point, so compression actually speeds up the backups). I'd like to be on a current software stream that I can easily update with bug-fixes and new features. The way I used to do that got broke in the Oracle takeover. I'm interested in encryption for my backups, if that's functional (and safe) in current software versions. I take copies off-site, so that's a useful precaution. Whatever I do, I'll of course make sure my backups are ALL up-to-date and at least one is back off-site before I do anything drastic. Is there an upgrade path from (I think I'm running Solaris Express) to something modern? (That could be an Oracle distribution, or the free software fork, or some Nexenta distribution; my current data pool is 1.8T, and I don't expect it to grow terribly fast, so the fully-featured free version fits my needs for example.) Upgrading might perhaps save me from changing all the user passwords (half a dozen, not a huge problem) and software packages I've added. (uname -a says "SunOS fsfs 5.11 snv_134 i86pc i386 i86pc"). Or should I just export my pool and do a from-scratch install of something? (Then recreate the users and install any missing software. I've got some cron jobs, too.) AND, what "something" should I upgrade to or install? I've tried a couple of times to figure out the alternatives and it's never really clear to me what my good options are. -- 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] [o.seib...@cs.ru.nl: A broken ZFS pool...]
On 02/15/2012 04:02 PM, Paul Kraus wrote: Are you saying that you cannot replace a failed drive without shutting down the system? If that is the case with FreeBSD then I suggest that FreeBSD is not ready for production use. I know that under Solaris you_can_ replace failed drives with no downtime to the end users, we do it on a regular basis. I suspect there is a method to replace a failed drive under FreeBSD with no outage (assuming the drive is in a hot swap capable enclosure), but as I am not familiar with FreeBSD I do not know what it is. Hm no, that's not what I meant, I guess I shouldn't have included that. Simply offlining the device (to make sure no attempts to access it are made) should be sufficient if you indeed assume a hotswap bay. Tiemen ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [o.seib...@cs.ru.nl: A broken ZFS pool...]
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Tiemen Ruiten wrote:
> The correct sequence to replace a failed drive in a ZFS pool is:
>
> zpool offline tank da4
> shutdown and replace the drive
> zpool replace tank da4
Are you saying that you cannot replace a failed drive without
shutting down the system? If that is the case with FreeBSD then I
suggest that FreeBSD is not ready for production use. I know that
under Solaris you _can_ replace failed drives with no downtime to the
end users, we do it on a regular basis.
I suspect there is a method to replace a failed drive under
FreeBSD with no outage (assuming the drive is in a hot swap capable
enclosure), but as I am not familiar with FreeBSD I do not know what
it is.
--
{1-2-3-4-5-6-7-}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, Troy Civic Theatre Company
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [o.seib...@cs.ru.nl: A broken ZFS pool...]
On 02/15/2012 02:49 PM, Olaf Seibert wrote: This is the current status: $ zpool status pool: tank state: FAULTED status: One or more devices could not be opened. There are insufficient replicas for the pool to continue functioning. action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'. see:http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-3C scan: scrub repaired 0 in 49h3m with 2 errors on Fri Jan 20 15:10:35 2012 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank FAULTED 0 0 2 raidz2-0 DEGRADED 0 0 8 da0 ONLINE 0 0 0 da1 ONLINE 0 0 0 da2 ONLINE 0 0 0 da3 ONLINE 0 0 0 3758301462980058947 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 was /dev/da4 da5 ONLINE 0 0 0 The strange thing is that the pool is FAULTED while its part is merely DEGRADED. da4 failed reccently and was replaced with a new disk, but no resilvering is taking place. The correct sequence to replace a failed drive in a ZFS pool is: zpool offline tank da4 shutdown and replace the drive zpool replace tank da4 You can see a history of modifications you've made to your pool with: zpool history Probably you haven't gone through this sequence correctly and now ZFS is still referring to the old/wrong UUID (the number you see instead of da4) and therefore thinks the disk is unavailable. Hope that helps, Tiemen ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] [o.seib...@cs.ru.nl: A broken ZFS pool...]
At the moment I am feverishly seeking advice for how to fix a broken ZFS
raidz2 I have (using FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE).
This is the current status:
$ zpool status
pool: tank
state: FAULTED
status: One or more devices could not be opened. There are insufficient
replicas for the pool to continue functioning.
action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'.
see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-3C
scan: scrub repaired 0 in 49h3m with 2 errors on Fri Jan 20 15:10:35 2012
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
tank FAULTED 0 0 2
raidz2-0 DEGRADED 0 0 8
da0 ONLINE 0 0 0
da1 ONLINE 0 0 0
da2 ONLINE 0 0 0
da3 ONLINE 0 0 0
3758301462980058947 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 was /dev/da4
da5 ONLINE 0 0 0
The strange thing is that the pool is FAULTED while its part is merely
DEGRADED.
da4 failed reccently and was replaced with a new disk, but no resilvering is
taking place.
I've already tried lots of things with this, including exporting and
then "zpool import -nFX tank". (I only got it back-imported with "zpool
import -V tank). The -nFX ("extreme rewind") option gives no output, but
there is a lot of I/O activity going on, as if it is rewinding forever,
or in a loop, or something like that.
One thing that may, or may not, complicate things is the following.
Already quite a while ago there suddenly was a directory that was so
corrupted that zfs reported I/O errors for various files in it. I could
not even remove them; in the end I moved the other files to a new
directory and put the original directory to the side, and made it mode
000. (If rewinding wants to go back to before this happened, I can
understand that this takes a while, but I left it running overnight and
it didn't make visible progress)
zdb and various other commands complain about the pool not being
available, or I/O errors. For instance:
fourquid.1:~$ sudo zpool clear -nF tank
fourquid.1:~$ sudo zpool clear -F tank
cannot clear errors for tank: I/O error
fourquid.1:~$ sudo zpool clear -nFX tank
(no output, uses some cpu, some I/O)
zdb -v ok
zdb -v -c tank zdb: can't open 'tank': input/output error
zdb -v -l /dev/da[01235]ok
zdb -v -u tank zdb: can't open 'tank': Input/output error
zdb -v -l -u /dev/da[01235] ok
zdb -v -m tank zdb: can't open 'tank': Input/output error
zdb -v -m -X tank no output, uses cpu and I/O
zdb -v -i tank zdb: can't open 'tank': Input/output error
zdb -v -i -F tank zdb: can't open 'tank': Input/output error
zdb -v -i -X tank no output, uses cpu and I/O
Are there any hints you can give me? I have full FreeBSD source online
so I can modify some tools, if needed.
Thanks in advance,
-Olaf.
--
Pipe rene = new PipePicture(); assert(Not rene.GetType().Equals(Pipe));
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
