Hi all
I just did a small test on RAIDz2 to check whether my suspicion was right about
ZFS not treating spares as replicas/copies of drives, and I think I've found it
true. The short story: If two spares replaces two drives in raidz2, losing a
third drive, even with the spares active, makes
- Original Message -
Hi all
I just did a small test on RAIDz2 to check whether my suspicion was
right about ZFS not treating spares as replicas/copies of drives, and
I think I've found it true. The short story: If two spares replaces
two drives in raidz2, losing a third drive, even
In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz
storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks failed
last night so I shut down the server and replaced it with a spare. When I tried
to zpool replace the disk I get:
zpool replace tank c10t0d0
I understand that some of it may be a simple bug, but should it hang _all_ the
pools? That's what happens when the third drive is removed...
roy
- Original Message -
This looks like a pretty simple bug. The issue is that the state of the SPARE
vdev is being reported as REMOVED
This looks like a pretty simple bug. The issue is that the state of the
SPARE vdev is being reported as REMOVED instead of DEGRADED. If it were the
latter (as it should be), then everything would work just fine. Please file
a bug at bugs.illumos.org.
On a side note, this continues to expose
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.netwrote:
In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz
storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks
failed last night so I shut down the server and replaced it with a
So should I post a bug, or is there one there already?
Btw, I can't reach http://bugs.illumos.org/ - it times out
roy
- Original Message -
We've talked about this, and I will be putting together a fix for this
incorrect state handling. :-)
- Garrett
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:50
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 18:03 +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
So should I post a bug, or is there one there already?
Btw, I can't reach http://bugs.illumos.org/ - it times out
Try again in a few minutes... the server just got rebooted.
- Garrett
roy
- Original Message
On Mar 4, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net wrote:
In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz
storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks
failed last night
Hi Robert,
We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent
sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window.
Yes, you can do #2 below and the pool size will be adjusted down to the
smaller size. Before you do this, I would check the sizes of both
spares.
If both spares
Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Robert,
We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent
sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window.
In former times, similar problems applied to partitioned disks with UFS
and we at that time did check the
The fix for 6991788 would probably let the 40mb drive work, but it would
depend on the asize of the pool.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
Hi Robert,
We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent
sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window.
Yes,
On Fri, Mar 4 at 9:22, Robert Hartzell wrote:
In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz
storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks failed
last night so I shut down the server and replaced it with a spare. When I tried
to zpool
Robert,
Which Solaris release is this?
Thanks,
Cindy
On 03/04/11 11:10, Mark J Musante wrote:
The fix for 6991788 would probably let the 40mb drive work, but it would
depend on the asize of the pool.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
Hi Robert,
We integrated some fixes that
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
Robert,
Which Solaris release is this?
Thanks,
Cindy
Solaris 11 express 2010.11
--
Robert Hartzell
b...@rwhartzell.net
RwHartzell.Net, Inc.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4 at 9:22, Robert Hartzell wrote:
In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz
storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks
failed last night so I shut down the server
One comment: The IDEMA LBA01 spec size of a 160GB device is
312,581,808 sectors.
Instead of those WD models, where neither the old nor new drives
follow the IDEMA recommendation, consider buying a drive that
reports
that many sectors. Almost all models these days should be following
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
The response was that Sun makes sure all drives
are exactly the same size (although I do recall someone on this forum
having
this issue with Sun OEM disks as well).
That was me.
18 matches
Mail list logo
