Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-05 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
You cannot. That's why I suggested two years ago that they chop off 1% from the end of the disk at install time to equalize drive sizes. That way you you wouldn't run into this problem trying to replace disks from a different vendor or different batch. The response was that Sun makes sure all

[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Robert Hartzell
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Tim Cook
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Robert Hartzell
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Cindy Swearingen
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Joerg Schilling
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Mark J Musante
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,

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Eric D. Mudama
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Cindy Swearingen
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Robert Hartzell
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Robert Hartzell
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

2011-03-04 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
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.