I found setting atime=off was enough to get zfs receive working for me, but the
readonly property should work as well.
I chose not to set the pool readonly, as I want to be able to use my backup
pool as a replacement easily, without changing any settings. Not using -F
means that as soon as
Marcus Sundman wrote:
Hi
I've used format's volname command to give labels to my drives
according to their physical location. I did quite a lot of work
labeling all my drives (I couldn't figure out which controller got
which numbers so I had to disconnect drives one by one, and they're not
I overlooked something in the manual, I'm sure..
But I have a question: when I create a snapshot of a zfs filesystem and
want to -return- to the state before that snapshot was taken, how do I
do that?
Thanks for any pointers.
-Dick
___
zfs-discuss
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Joseph Mocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If I add the second array to the pool, I could probably continue with the
same number of columns in the raidz, but the size of the strips would
increase. Would this effect performance somehow?
I hate
James C. McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcus Sundman wrote:
I couldn't figure out which controller got which numbers so I had
to disconnect drives one by one
I'm interested in what you did to figure out your drive
locations - did you use cfgadm, fmtopo or sestopo to figure
it out,
Marcus Sundman wrote:
James C. McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcus Sundman wrote:
I couldn't figure out which controller got which numbers so I had
to disconnect drives one by one
I'm interested in what you did to figure out your drive
locations - did you use cfgadm, fmtopo or sestopo
Boyd Adamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alas, it's not even as simple as that. The author of SQLite, D. Richard
Hipp, took this approach for reasons like those above. He's said[1] that
he wouldn't do it again, since there are problems for users in some
jurisdictions that have no concept of
Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
I overlooked something in the manual, I'm sure..
But I have a question: when I create a snapshot of a zfs filesystem and
want to -return- to the state before that snapshot was taken, how do I
do that?
Gday Dick,
sounds like you're looking for zfs rollback
A Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 03:19:49AM +0300, Marcus Sundman wrote:
I've used format's volname command to give labels to my drives
according to their physical location. I did quite a lot of work
labeling all my drives (I couldn't figure out which
iostat -En will show you device and serial number (at least on the Sun hardware
I've used).
My old way of finding drives is to run format and run a disk read test that
isn't destructive and look for the drive with the access light going crazy.
Most drives still have a very small LED on them
readonly=on worked (at least with -F), but then it got the error creating a
mountpoint I mentioned above. So I took away readonly=on, and it got past that
part, however the snapshots past the first one take an eternity. I left it
overnight and it managed to get from 21MB copied for the second
Timh Bergström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunely I can only agree to the doubts about running ZFS in
production environments, i've lost ditto-blocks, i''ve gotten
corrupted pools and a bunch of other failures even in
mirror/raidz/raidz2 setups with or without hardware mirrors/raid5/6.
James, is there no way ZFS could be updated so that rolling back to an old
snapshot doesn't require destroying newer ones?
I'm just thinking this could be handy with ZFS boot, allowing you to roll back
to a previous configuration, while keeping the ability to roll forward again if
you wanted.
Ross wrote:
James, is there no way ZFS could be updated so that rolling back to an old
snapshot doesn't require destroying newer ones?
I'm just thinking this could be handy with ZFS boot, allowing you to roll
back to a previous configuration, while keeping the ability to roll forward
Thanks Gary. This solved the problem. I wish I knew where to find
these reminders in advance of doing an upgrade. I hate reboots. ;-)
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Gary Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 04:09:08PM -0700, Joe S wrote:
Sorry if this is the wrong list, but
I'd like to replace/upgrade two 500GB disks in RaidZ2 vdev with 1TB disks, but
I have some preliminary questions/concerns before trying 'zfs replace dpool …'
Will ZFS permit this replacement?
Will ZFS use the extra space in a heterogeneous RaidZ2 vdev, or is the size
limited by the smallest
On 11 October, 2008 - Vizzini Sampere sent me these 1,4K bytes:
I'd like to replace/upgrade two 500GB disks in RaidZ2 vdev with 1TB
disks, but I have some preliminary questions/concerns before trying
'zfs replace dpool ???'
Will ZFS permit this replacement?
Yes.
Will ZFS use the extra
ZFS will allow the replacement. The available size is, however,
be determined by the smallest of the lot. Once you've replaced
*all* 500GB disks with 1TB disks, the available space will double.
One suggestion: replace as many disks as you intend to at the same time,
so that ZFS only has to do
No, until you've replaced all disks, it will still be 500G*N.
ah, thank you very much!
-v
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
One suggestion: replace as many disks as you intend to at the same time,
so that ZFS only has to do one resilver operation. It's faster that way.
Jeff
Just to be more clear on this:
Assuming you have data you care about on the current raidz2 zpool, you
should
Actually, you can replace them all at once, as long as you don't unplug
the old ones first. Let's say you have a raidz2 setup like this:
mypool
raidz2
a
b
c
d
and you say this:
# zpool replace mypool a A
# zpool replace
James C. McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcus Sundman wrote:
[...]
blinder:jmcp $ for dev in `awk -F'' '/sd/ {print
$2}' /etc/path_to_inst`; do prtconf -v /devices/$dev|egrep -i
id1|dev.dsk.*s2 ; done
[...]
$ cfgadm -lav sata0
[...]
Having the physical serial number reported makes
On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM 10/10/, David Magda wrote:
If someone finds themselves in this position, what advice can be
followed to minimize risks?
Can you ask for two LUNs on different physical SAN devices and have
an expectation of getting it?
--
Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL
23 matches
Mail list logo
