Michael,
You can't attach disks to an existing RAIDZ vdev, but you add another
RAIDZ vdev. Also keep in mind that you can't detach disks from RAIDZ
pools either.
See the syntax below.
Cindy
# zpool create rzpool raidz2 c1t0d0 c1t1d0 c1t2d0
# zpool status
pool: rzpool
state: ONLINE
ms == Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com writes:
ms When I attach this new raidz2, will ZFS auto rebalance data
ms between the two, or will it keep the other one empty and do
ms some sort of load balancing between the two for future writes
ms only?
the second choice.
You can see
Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
ms == Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com writes:
ms When I attach this new raidz2, will ZFS auto rebalance data
ms between the two, or will it keep the other one empty and do
ms some sort of load balancing between the two
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to try to move one of my disks off my rpool tomorrow (since
it's a mirror) to a different controller.
According to what I've heard before, ZFS should automagically
recognize this new location and have no
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Now quick question - if I have a raidz2 named 'tank' already I can
expand the pool by doing:
zpool attach tank raidz2 device1 device2 device3 ... device7
It will make 'tank' larger and each group of disks (vdev? or zdev?)
will be dual parity. It won't
* On 07 Apr 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Now quick question - if I have a raidz2 named 'tank' already I can
expand the pool by doing:
zpool attach tank raidz2 device1 device2 device3 ... device7
It will make 'tank' larger and each group of disks (vdev? or zdev?)
will be dual parity. It
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
No. The two vdevs will be load shared rather than creating a mirror. This
should double your multi-user performance.
Cool - now a followup -
When I attach this new raidz2, will ZFS auto rebalance data between
Michael Shadle wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
No. The two vdevs will be load shared rather than creating a mirror. This
should double your multi-user performance.
Cool - now a followup -
When I attach this new raidz2,
I'm going to try to move one of my disks off my rpool tomorrow (since
it's a mirror) to a different controller.
According to what I've heard before, ZFS should automagically
recognize this new location and have no problem, right?
Or do I need to do some sort of detach/etc. process first?
Michael Shadle wrote:
I'm going to try to move one of my disks off my rpool tomorrow (since
it's a mirror) to a different controller.
According to what I've heard before, ZFS should automagically
recognize this new location and have no problem, right?
Or do I need to do some sort of
Michael Shadle wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like a reasonable idea, no?
Follow up question: can I add a single disk to the existing raidz2
later on (if somehow I found more space in my chassis) so instead of a
7 disk raidz2
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Scott Lawson
scott.law...@manukau.ac.nz wrote:
No. There is no way to expand a RAIDZ or RAIDZ2 at this point. It is a
feature that is often discussed
and people would like, but has been seen by Sun as more of a feature home
users would like rather2
than
On Mar 31, 2009, at 04:31, Scott Lawson wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/expand_o_matic_raid_z
There's a more recent post on bp (block pointer) rewriting that will
allow for moving blocks around (part of cleaning up the scrub code):
http://blogs.sun.com/ahrens/entry/new_scrub_code
My only question is is how long it takes to resilver... Supposedly the
entire array has to be checked which means 6x1.5tb. It has a quad core
CPU that's basically dedicated to it. Anyone have any estimates?
Sounds like it is a lot slower than a normal raid5 style rebuild. Is
there a way to
On Mar 30, 2009, at 13:48, Michael Shadle wrote:
My only question is is how long it takes to resilver... Supposedly
the entire array has to be checked which means 6x1.5tb. It has a
quad core CPU that's basically dedicated to it. Anyone have any
estimates?
Sounds like it is a lot slower
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
There is a background process in ZFS (see scrub in zpool(1M)) that goes
through and make sure all the checksums match reality (and corrects things
if it can). It's reading all the data, but unlike hardware RAID arrays, it
On Mar 30, 2009, at 19:13, Michael Shadle wrote:
Normally it seems like raid5 is perfectly fine for a workoad like this
but maybe I'd sleep better at night knowing I could have 2 disks fail,
but the odds of that are pretty slim. I've never had 2 disks fail, and
if I did, the whole array is
Michael Shadle wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
There is a background process in ZFS (see scrub in zpool(1M)) that goes
through and make sure all the checksums match reality (and corrects things
if it can). It's reading all the data, but unlike
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com wrote:
Well basically I am trying to analyze giving up 1/7th of my space for
the off chance that one drive fails during resilvering. I just don't
know what kind of time to expect for a resilver. I'm sure it also
depends on the
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have to
turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to be highly
available and
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have to
turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to be highly
available and
On Mar 29, 2009, at 00:41, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well I might back up the more important stuff offsite. But in theory
it's all replaceable. Just would be a pain.
And what is the cost of the time to replace it versus the price of a
hard disk? Time ~ money.
There used to be a time when I
Okay so riddle me this - can I create a raidz2 using the new disks and
move all the data from the existing zdev to it. Then recreate a raidz2
this time using the old 7 disks ?
And have them all stay in the same Zpool?
Side note: does the port I plug the drive into matter on the
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Okay so riddle me this - can I create a raidz2 using the new disks and move
all the data from the existing zdev to it. Then recreate a raidz2 this time
using the old 7 disks ?
And have them all stay in the same Zpool?
You will have to create a new
On 03/29/09 11:58, David Magda wrote:
On Mar 29, 2009, at 00:41, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well I might back up the more important stuff offsite. But in theory
it's all replaceable. Just would be a pain.
And what is the cost of the time to replace it versus the price of a
hard disk? Time ~
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
So what is best if you get a 4th drive for a 3 drive raidz? Is it
better to keep it separate and use it for backups of the replaceable
data (perhaps on a different machine), as a hot spare, second parity,
or something else? Seems so un-green to have
On Mar 29, 2009, at 12:40, Frank Middleton wrote:
So what is best if you get a 4th drive for a 3 drive raidz? Is it
better to keep it separate and use it for backups of the replaceable
data (perhaps on a different machine), as a hot spare, second parity,
or something else? Seems so un-green to
On Mar 29, 2009, at 12:17, Michael Shadle wrote:
Okay so riddle me this - can I create a raidz2 using the new disks
and move all the data from the existing zdev to it. Then recreate a
raidz2 this time using the old 7 disks?
And have them all stay in the same Zpool?
Yes, I believe so.
On Mar 29, 2009, at 13:24, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
With so few drives it does not make sense to use raidz2, and
particularly since raidz2 still does not protect against user error,
OS bugs, severe over-voltage from a common power supply, or
meteorite strike.
I remember reading on this
Tim wrote:
I did NOT say nobody recommends using raid5. What I *DID* say was
that NOBODY supports using raid-5 and raid-6 under a single pool of
storage. Which IBM array are you referring to that is supported with
RAID5 and 6 in a single pool?
Thanks for the clarification, Tim, I thought
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM, David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
Create new pool, move data to it (zfs send/recv), destroy old RAID-Z1 pool.
Would send/recv be more efficient than just a massive rsync or related?
Also I'd have to reduce the data on my existing raidz1 as it is almost
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM, David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
Create new pool, move data to it (zfs send/recv), destroy old RAID-Z1 pool.
Would send/recv be more efficient than just a massive rsync or
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net wrote:
I'd personally say send/recv would be more efficient, rsync is awfully
slow on large data sets. But, it depends what build you are using!
BugID 6418042 (slow zfs send/recv) was fixed in build 105, it impacted
send/recv
On Mar 29, 2009, at 16:37, Michael Shadle wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM, David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca
wrote:
Create new pool, move data to it (zfs send/recv), destroy old RAID-
Z1 pool.
Would send/recv be more efficient than just a massive rsync or
related?
Also I'd have
Hello David and Michael,
Well I might back up the more important stuff offsite. But in theory
it's all replaceable. Just would be a pain.
And what is the cost of the time to replace it versus the price of a hard
disk? Time ~ money.
This is true, but there is one counterpoint. If you do
I currently have a 7x1.5tb raidz1.
I want to add phase 2 which is another 7x1.5tb raidz1
Can I add the second phase to the first phase and basically have two
raid5's striped (in raid terms?)
Yes, I probably should upgrade the zpool format too. Currently running
snv_104. Also should upgrade to
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I currently have a 7x1.5tb raidz1.
I want to add phase 2 which is another 7x1.5tb raidz1
Can I add the second phase to the first phase and basically have two
raid5's striped (in raid terms?)
Yes, that's how it's done.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.com
wrote:
zpool add tank raidz1 disk_1 disk_2 disk_3 ...
(The syntax is just like creating a pool, only with add instead of create.)
so I can add
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.com wrote:
so I can add individual disks to the existing tank zpool anytime i want?
Yes, but you wouldn't want to do that. (And zpool might not like it.)
If you just add a disk, it just gets added as a new device. So you have
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Peter Tribble wrote:
The choice of raidz1 versus raidz2 is another matter. Given that
you've already got raidz1, and you can't (yet) grow that or expand
it to raidz2, then there doesn't seem to be much point to having the
second half of your storage being more protected.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Peter Tribble wrote:
The choice of raidz1 versus raidz2 is another matter. Given that you've
already got raidz1, and you can't (yet) grow that or expand it to raidz2,
then there
Michael Shadle wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Peter Tribble
peter.trib...@gmail.com wrote:
zpool add tank raidz1 disk_1 disk_2 disk_3 ...
(The syntax is just like creating a pool, only with add instead of
create.)
so I can add individual disks to the existing tank zpool anytime i
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Tim wrote:
#1: yes, there is harm as he may very well run into inconsistent performance
which is a complete PITA to track down when you've got differing raidtypes
underlying a volume.
Inconsistent performance can come from many things, including a single
balky disk
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Jonathan wrote:
This really depends on how valuable your data is. Richard Elling has a
lot of great information about MTTDL here
http://blogs.sun.com/relling/tags/mttdl
Almost any data with a grade higher than disposable junk becomes
pretty valuable once you consider
2009/3/28 Tim t...@tcsac.net:
There is no harm from using a raidz2 vdev even if an existing vdev is only
raidz1. If raidz2 is an available option then it is wise to choose it. Of
course starting out with raidz2 would have been even better.
#2: raidz2 isn't always wise to choose. It's a
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
if i went raidz2 i'd want the entire 14 disk array in it i think.
i'd rather not do a raidz2 with less than 100% of the disks and then a
second raidz1 (or 2) because i'd wind up losing much more disk space.
essentially, i am willing to give up 2 of 14
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Tim wrote:
#1: yes, there is harm as he may very well run into inconsistent
performance
which is a complete PITA to track down when you've got differing raidtypes
underlying a
* On 28 Mar 2009, Peter Tribble wrote:
The choice of raidz1 versus raidz2 is another matter. Given that
you've already got raidz1, and you can't (yet) grow that or expand
it to raidz2, then there doesn't seem to be much point to having the
second half of your storage being more protected.
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have
to turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to be
highly available and I do not need extreme performance like a database
for example. 45mb/sec would even be acceptable.
On Mar 28, 2009, at 10:47 AM,
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have to turn
it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to be highly
available and I do not need extreme performance like a database for example.
45mb/sec would even be
On Mar 28, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I
have to turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not
need to be highly available and
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have
to turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to
be highly available and I do not need extreme performance like a
database for example.
52 matches
Mail list logo
