... not that theyre bad but in this realm youre the man :)
Thanks,
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Good call Saso. Sigh... I guess I wait to hear from HP on supported IT
mode HBAs in their D2000s or other jbods.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Sašo Kiselkov skiselkov...@gmail.comwrote:
On 01/08/2013 04:27 PM, mark wrote:
On Jul 2, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
FYI, HP also
On 11/16/12 17:15, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I have been tracking down a problem with zfs diff that reveals
itself variously as a hang (unkillable process), panic or error,
depending on the ZFS kernel version but seems to be caused by
corruption within the pool. I am using FreeBSD but the issue looks
On 11/19/12 1:14 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
On 2012-11-19 20:58, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
There is probably nothing wrong with the snapshots. This is a bug in
ZFS diff. The ZPL parent pointer is only guaranteed to be correct for
directory objects. What you probably have is a file that was hard
for monitoring usage? I
wonder how they have it all working in Fishworks gear as some of the
analytics demos show you being able to drill down on through file
activity in real time.
Any advice or suggestions greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Mark
: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files:
rpool/filemover:0x1
# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
rpool6.64T 0 29.9K /rpool
rpool/filemover 6.64T 323G 6.32T -
Thanks
Mark
___
zfs
=192.168.1.52:192.168.1.51:192.168.1.53
local
-Original Message-
From: Jim Klimov [mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:44 PM
To: Mark Wolek
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with ESX NFS store on ZFS
2012-02-29 21:15, Mark Wolek
?
Thanks
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
You can see the original ARC case here:
http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2009/557/20091013_lori.alt
On 8 Dec 2011, at 16:41, Ian Collins wrote:
On 12/ 9/11 12:39 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 12/07/11 20:48, Mertol Ozyoney wrote:
Unfortunetly the answer is no. Neither l1 nor l2
. Do I have to do:
zfs create datastore/zones/zonemaster
before I can create a zone in that path? That's not in the documentation,
so I didn't want to do anything until someone can point out my error for
me. Thanks for your help!
--
Mark
___
zfs-discuss
a drive to sorry no more writes aloud scenarios.
Thanks
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Neil Perrin
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 11:38 AM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Log disk with all ssd pool?
On 10/28/11 00:54, Neil Perrin wrote:
On 10/28/11 00:04, Mark Wolek wrote:
Still kicking around this idea
Why don't you see which byte differs, and how it does?
Maybe that would suggest the failure mode. Is it the
same byte data in all affected files, for instance?
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Robert Watzlavick rob...@watzlavick.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 2011, at 13:14
. Sweet update.
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 27 Sep 2011, at 18:29, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tony MacDoodle
Now:
mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t3d0 ONLINE
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Tyler Benster wrote:
It seems quite likely that all of the data is intact, and that something
different is preventing me from accessing the pool. What can I do to
recover the pool? I have downloaded the Solaris 11 express livecd if
that would be of any use.
Try running
Hi Doug,
The vms pool was created in a non-redundant way, so there is no way to
get the data off of it unless you can put back the original c0t3d0 disk.
If you can still plug in the disk, you can always do a zpool replace on it
afterwards.
If not, you'll need to restore from backup,
Shouldn't the choice of RAID type also
be based on the i/o requirements?
Anyway, with RAID-10, even a second
failed disk is not catastophic, so long
as it is not the counterpart of the first
failed disk, no matter the no. of disks.
(With 2-way mirrors.)
But that's why we do backups, right?
Mark
minor quibble: compressratio uses a lowercase x for the description text
whereas the new prop uses an uppercase X
On 6 Jun 2011, at 21:10, Eric Schrock wrote:
Webrev has been updated:
http://dev1.illumos.org/~eschrock/cr/zfs-refratio/
- Eric
--
Eric Schrock
Delphix
275
On 6/1/11 12:51 AM, lance wilson wrote:
The problem is that nfs clients that connect to my solaris 11 express server
are not inheriting the acl's that are set for the share. They create files that
don't have any acl assigned to them, just the normal unix file permissions. Can
someone please
Yeah, this is a known problem. The DTL on the toplevel shows an outage, and is
preventing the removal of the spare even though removing the spare won't make
the outage worse.
Unfortunately, for opensolaris anyway, there is no workaround.
You could try doing a full scrub, replacing any disks
external eSATA enclosures to these. You'll
get two eSATA ports without needing to use any PCI slots
and I believe that if you use the very bottom pci slot opening
you won't even block any of the actual pci slots from future use.
-Mark D.
On 05/ 6/11 12:04 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking
exactly the problem is?
I don't follow? What else would an X4540 or a 7xxx box
be used for, other than a storage appliance?
Guess I'm slow. :-)
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs
On Apr 8, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ian Collinsi...@ianshome.com wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
While I understand everything
line,
which by the way has brilliant engineering design, the choice is gone now.
Okay, so what is the great advantage
of an X4540 versus X86 server plus
disk array(s)?
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
On 04/ 9/11 03:20 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Aurylaevaldas.aur...@edqm.eu wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
and they do
On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
On 04/ 9/11 03:53 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
I'm not arguing. If it were up to me,
we'd still be selling those boxes.
Maybe you could whisper in the right ear?
I wish. I'd have a long list if I could do that.
Mark
drive in the
software, before physically replacing it?
I'm also not sure at exactly which juncture to do a 'zpool clear' and 'zpool
scrub'?
I'd appreciate any guidance - thanks in advance,
Mark
Mark Mahabir
Systems Manager, X-Ray and Observational Astronomy
Dept. of Physics Astronomy
(/export/...) on a separate pool, thus off-loading the
root pool.
My two cents,
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
as I would have done in the old days under SDS. :-)
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
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,
= 3836 MB
arc_meta_max = 3951 MB
Is it normal for arc_meta_used == arc_meta_limit?
Does this explain the hang?
Thanks,
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman
for trouble.
This environment is completely available to mess with (no data at risk), so
I'm willing to try any option you guys would recommend.
Thanks!
--
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman
On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
All other
things being equal, the 15k and the 7200 drive, which share
electronics, will have the same max transfer rate at the OD.
Is that true? So the only difference is in the access time?
Mark
Why do you say fssnap has the same problem?
If it write locks the file system, it is only for a matter of seconds, as I
recall.
Years ago, I used it on a daily basis to do ufsdumps of large fs'es.
Mark
On Jan 30, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
On 1/30/2011 5:26 PM, Joerg Schilling
iirc, we would notify the user community that the FS'es were going to hang
briefly.
Locking the FS'es is the best way to quiesce it, when users are worldwide, imo.
Mark
On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
A matter of seconds is a long time for a running Oracle database
.
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
filesystems.)
I'm supposing that a block-level snapshot is not doable -- or is it?
Mark
On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 12/20/2010 9:20 AM, Saxon, Will wrote:
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org
On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 12/20/2010 11:56 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
Erik,
just a hypothetical what-if ...
In the case of resilvering on a mirrored disk, why not take a snapshot, and
then
resilver by doing a pure block copy from the snapshot? It would
It well may be that different methods are optimal for different use cases.
Mechanical disk vs. SSD; mirrored vs. raidz[123]; sparse vs. populated; etc.
It would be interesting to read more in this area, if papers are available.
I'll have to take a look. ... Or does someone have pointers?
Mark
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Curtis Schiewek wrote:
Hi Mark,
I've tried running zpool attach media ad24 ad12 (ad12 being the new
disk) and I get no response. I tried leaving the command run for an
extended period of time and nothing happens.
What version of solaris are you running
On 5 Dec 2010, at 16:06, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk r...@karlsbakk.net wrote:
Hot spares are dedicated spares in the ZFS world. Until you replace
the actual bad drives, you will be running in a degraded state. The
idea is that spares are only used in an emergency. You are degraded
until your
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Curtis Schiewek wrote:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
media DEGRADED 0 0 0
raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
ad8ONLINE 0 0 0
ad10 ONLINE 0 0 0
ad24 ad18
for you.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Mark J Musante mark.musa...@oracle.comwrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Curtis Schiewek wrote:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
media DEGRADED 0 0 0
raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
with their support and see if you can use something
similar.
Cheers,
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Nov 2, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 11/ 2/10 08:33 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
I'm working with someone who replaced a failed 1TB drive (50% utilized),
on an X4540 running OS build 134, and I think something must be wrong.
Last Tuesday afternoon, zpool status reported
Edward,
I recently installed a 7410 cluster, which had added Fiber Channel HBAs.
I know the site also has Blade 6000s running VMware, but no idea if they
were planning to run fiber to those blades (or even had the option to do so).
But perhaps FC would be an option for you?
Mark
On Nov 12
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 10/11/2010 11:18, sridhar surampudi wrote:
I was wondering how zpool split works or implemented.
Or are you really asking about the implementation details ? If you want
to know how it is implemented then you need to read the source code.
Also
the archives, but they don't seem searchable. Or am I wrong about
that?
Thanks.
Mark (subscription pending)
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
You should only see a HOLE in your config if you removed a slog after having
added more stripes. Nothing to do with bad sectors.
On 14 Oct 2010, at 06:27, Matt Keenan wrote:
Hi,
Can someone shed some light on what this ZPOOL_CONFIG is exactly.
At a guess is it a bad sector of the disk,
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Linder, Doug wrote:
Is there any technical difference between using zfs unmount to unmount
a ZFS filesystem versus the standard unix umount command? I always
use zfs unmount but some of my colleagues still just use umount. Is
there any reason to use one over the other?
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Darren J Moffat wrote:
* It can be applied recursively down a ZFS hierarchy
True.
* It will unshare the filesystems first
Actually, because we use the zfs command to do the unmount, we end up
doing the unshare on the filesystem first.
See the opensolaris code for
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Valerio Piancastelli wrote:
After a crash i cannot access one of my datasets anymore.
ls -v cts
brwxrwxrwx+ 2 root root 0, 0 ott 18 2009 cts
zfs list sas/mail-cts
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
sas/mail-cts 149G 250G 149G /sas/mail-cts
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Valerio Piancastelli wrote:
Yes, it is mounted
r...@disk-00:/volumes/store# zfs get sas/mail-ccts
NAME PROPERTY VALUESOURCE
sas/mail-cts mounted yes -
OK - so the next question would be where the data is. I assume when you
say you cannot access
Hi Steve,
Couple of options.
Create a new boot environment on the SSD, and this will copy the data over.
Or
zfs send -R rp...@backup | zfs recv altpool
I'd use the alt boot environment, rather than the send and receive.
Cheers,
-Mark.
On 19/09/2010, at 5:37 PM, Steve Arkley wrote
?
Cheers,
Mark
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Did you run installgrub before rebooting?
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote:
Hi,
After upgrade from snv_138 to snv_142 or snv_145 I'm unable to boot the system.
Here is what I get.
Any idea why it's not able to import rpool?
I saw this issue also on older builds on a different
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Benjamin Brumaire wrote:
your point have only a rethoric meaning.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I was asking specifically about your
situation. You want to run labelfix on /dev/rdsk/c0d1s4 - what happened
to that slice that requires a labelfix? Is there
What does 'zpool import' show? If that's empty, what about 'zpool import
-d /dev'?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Dominik Hoffmann wrote:
I think, I just destroyed the information on the old raidz members by doing
zpool create BackupRAID raidz /dev/disk0s2 /dev/disk1s2 /dev/disk2s2
It should have warned you that two of the disks were already formatted
with a zfs pool. Did it not do
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Benjamin Brumaire wrote:
As this feature didn't make it into zfs it would be nice to have it
again.
Better to spend time fixing the problem that requires a 'labelfix' as a
workaround, surely. What's causing the need to fix vdev labels?
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Jeff Bacon wrote:
All of this would be ok... except THOSE ARE THE ONLY DEVICES THAT WERE
PART OF THE POOL. How can it be missing a device that didn't exist?
The device(s) in question are probably the logs you refer to here:
I can't obviously use b134 to import the
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Rainer Orth wrote:
zpool status thinks rpool is on c1t0d0s3, while format (and the kernel)
correctly believe it's c11t0d0(s3) instead.
Any suggestions?
Try removing the symlinks or using 'devfsadm -C' as suggested here:
Hey thanks for the replies everyone.
Saddly most of those options will not work, since we are using a SUN Unified
Storage 7210, the only option is to buy the SUN SSD's for it, which is about
$15k USD for a pair. We also don't have the ability to shut off ZIL or any of
the other options that
It does, its on a pair of large APC's.
Right now we're using NFS for our ESX Servers. The only iSCSI LUN's I have are
mounted inside a couple Windows VM's. I'd have to migrate all our VM's to
iSCSI, which I'm willing to do if it would help and not cause other issues.
So far the 7210
We are using a 7210, 44 disks I believe, 11 stripes of RAIDz sets. When I
installed I selected the best bang for the buck on the speed vs capacity chart.
We run about 30 VM's on it, across 3 ESX 4 servers. Right now, its all running
NFS, and it sucks... sooo slow.
iSCSI was no better.
I
I have been testing to work properly.
On the other hand, I could just use the spare 7210 Appliance boot disk I have
lying about.
Mark.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
You need to let the resilver complete before you can detach the spare. This is
a known problem, CR 6909724.
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6909724
On 18 Aug 2010, at 14:02, Dr. Martin Mundschenk wrote:
Hi!
I had trouble with my raidz in the way, that some of
I keep the pool version information up-to-date here:
http://blogs.sun.com/mmusante/entry/a_zfs_taxonomy
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
Hello,
This is a consolidated list of ZFS pool and filesystem versions, along with
the builds and systems they are found in. It is based on
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Matthias Appel wrote:
Can anybody tell me how to get rid of c1t3d0 and heal my zpool?
Can you do a zpool detach performance c1t3d0/o? If that works, then
zpool replace performance c1t3d0 c1t0d0 should replace the bad disk with
the new hot spare. Once the resilver
On 16 Aug 2010, at 22:30, Robert Hartzell wrote:
cd /mnt ; ls
bertha export var
ls bertha
boot etc
where is the rest of the file systems and data?
By default, root filesystems are not mounted. Try doing a zfs mount
bertha/ROOT/snv_134___
ran Red Hat 9 with updated packages for quite a few years.
As long as the kernel is stable, and you can work through the hurdles, it can
still do the job.
Mark.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the
Solaris code quality.
It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it's niche on SPARC over the
next few years.
Mark.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, seth keith wrote:
# zpool status
pool: brick
state: UNAVAIL
status: One or more devices could not be used because the label is missing
or invalid. There are insufficient replicas for the pool to continue
functioning.
action: Destroy and re-create the pool
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Seth Keith wrote:
When I do a zdb -l /dev/rdsk/any device I get the same output for all my
drives in the pool, but I don't think it looks right:
# zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c4d0
What about /dev/rdsk/c4d0s0?
___
zfs-discuss mailing
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, seth keith wrote:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
brick DEGRADED 0 0 0
raidz1 DEGRADED 0 0 0
c13d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c4d0
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, seth keith wrote:
first off I don't have the exact failure messages here, and I did not take good
notes of the failures, so I will do the best I can. Please try and give me
advice anyway.
I have a 7 drive raidz1 pool with 500G drives, and I wanted to replace them all
You can use 'zpool history -l syspool' to show the username of the person
who created the dataset. The history is in a ring buffer, so if too many
pool operations have happened since the dataset was created, the
information is lost.
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Peter Taps wrote:
Folks,
In my
You can also use the zpool split command and save yourself having to do the
zfs send|zfs recv step - all the data will be preserved.
zpool split rpool preserve does essentially everything up to and including
the zpool export preserve commands you listed in your original email. Just
don't try
I'm trying to understand how snapshots work in terms of how I can use them for
recovering and/or duplicating virtual machines, and how I should set up my file
system.
I want to use OpenSolaris as a storage platform with NFS/ZFS for some
development VMs; that is, the VMs use the OpenSolaris box
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Gary Gendel wrote:
Right now I have a machine with a mirrored boot setup. The SAS drives are 43Gs
and the root pool is getting full.
I do a backup of the pool nightly, so I feel confident that I don't need to
mirror the drive and can break the mirror and expand the pool
Hello, first time posting. I've been working with zfs on and off with limited
*nix experience for a year or so now, and have read a lot of things by a lot of
you I'm sure. Still tons I don't understand/know I'm sure.
We've been having awful IO latencies on our 7210 running about 40 VM's
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Tim Castle wrote:
j...@opensolaris:~# zpool import -d /dev
...shows nothing after 20 minutes
OK, then one other thing to try is to create a new directory, e.g. /mydev,
and create in it symbolic links to only those drives that are part of your
pool.
Based on your
What does 'zpool import -d /dev' show?
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Tim Castle wrote:
My raidz1 (ZFSv6) had a power failure, and a disk failure. Now:
j...@opensolaris:~# zpool import
pool: files
id: 3459234681059189202
state: UNAVAIL
status: One or
I had an interesting dilemma recently and I'm wondering if anyone here can
illuminate on why this happened.
I have a number of pools, including the root pool, in on-board disks on the
server. I also have one pool on a SAN disk, outside the system. Last night the
SAN crashed, and shortly
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Hi all
With several messages in here about troublesome zpools, would there be a
good reason to be able to fsck a pool? As in, check the whole thing
instead of having to boot into live CDs and whatnot?
You can do this with zpool scrub. It
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
what I'm saying is that there are several posts in here where the only
solution is to boot onto a live cd and then do an import, due to
metadata corruption. This should be doable from the installed system
Ah, I understand now.
A couple of
I'm new with ZFS, but I have had good success using it with raw physical disks.
One of my systems has access to an iSCSI storage target. The underlying
physical array is in a propreitary disk storage device from Promise. So the
question is, when building a OpenSolaris host to store its data on
I'm guessing that the virtualbox VM is ignoring write cache flushes. See this
for more ifno:
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=8t=13661
On 12 Jun, 2010, at 5.30, zfsnoob4 wrote:
Thanks, that works. But it only when I do a proper export first.
If I export the pool then I can
IHAC
Who has an x4500(x86 box) who has a zfs root filesystem. They installed
patches today,
the latest solaris 10 x86 recommended patch cluster and the patching
seemed to complete
successfully. Then when they tried to reboot the box the machine would
not boot? They
get the following error
Can you find the devices in /dev/rdsk? I see there is a path in /pseudo at
least, but the zpool import command only looks in /dev. One thing you can try
is doing this:
# mkdir /tmpdev
# ln -s /pseudo/vpat...@1:1 /tmpdev/vpath1a
And then see if 'zpool import -d /tmpdev' finds the pool.
On
On 28 May, 2010, at 17.21, Vadim Comanescu wrote:
In a stripe zpool configuration (no redundancy) is a certain disk regarded as
an individual vdev or do all the disks in the stripe represent a single vdev
? In a raidz configuration im aware that every single group of raidz disks is
On Mon, 24 May 2010, h wrote:
i had 6 disks in a raidz1 pool that i replaced from 1TB drives to 2TB
drives. i have installed the older 1TB drives in another system and
would like to import the old pool to access some files i accidentally
deleted from the new pool.
Did you use the 'zpool
On Wed, 19 May 2010, John Andrunas wrote:
ff001f45e830 unix:die+dd ()
ff001f45e940 unix:trap+177b ()
ff001f45e950 unix:cmntrap+e6 ()
ff001f45ea50 zfs:ddt_phys_decref+c ()
ff001f45ea80 zfs:zio_ddt_free+55 ()
ff001f45eab0 zfs:zio_execute+8d ()
ff001f45eb50
On Thu, 20 May 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Also, since you've got s0 on there, it means you've got some
partitions on that drive. You could manually wipe all that out via
format, but the above is pretty brainless and reliable.
The s0 on the old disk is a bug in the way we're formatting
Do you have a coredump? Or a stack trace of the panic?
On Wed, 19 May 2010, John Andrunas wrote:
Running ZFS on a Nexenta box, I had a mirror get broken and apparently
the metadata is corrupt now. If I try and mount vol2 it works but if
I try and mount -a or mount vol2/vm2 is instantly
, we have not encounted that issue.
You might want to look at
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;jsessionid=7acda35c626180d9cda7bd1df451?bug_id=6894775
too.
-Mark
Machine specs :
Dell R710, 16 GB memory, 2 Intel Quad-Core E5506
SunOS san01 5.11 snv_134 i86pc i386 i86pc
On 23 Apr, 2010, at 7.06, Phillip Oldham wrote:
I've created an OpenSolaris 2009.06 x86_64 image with the zpool structure
already defined. Starting an instance from this image, without attaching the
EBS volume, shows the pool structure exists and that the pool state is
UNAVAIL (as
On 23 Apr, 2010, at 7.31, Phillip Oldham wrote:
I'm not actually issuing any when starting up the new instance. None are
needed; the instance is booted from an image which has the zpool
configuration stored within, so simply starts and sees that the devices
aren't available, which become
On 23 Apr, 2010, at 8.38, Phillip Oldham wrote:
The instances are ephemeral; once terminated they cease to exist, as do all
their settings. Rebooting an image keeps any EBS volumes attached, but this
isn't the case I'm dealing with - its when the instance terminates
unexpectedly. For
1 - 100 of 515 matches
Mail list logo
