On Jan 11, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Eric Schrock wrote:
>
>> No, there is no way to tell if a pool has DTL (dirty time log) entries.
>
> Hmm, I hadn't heard that term before, but based on a quick search I take it
> that's the list of data in the pool that i
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Eric Schrock wrote:
> No, there is no way to tell if a pool has DTL (dirty time log) entries.
Hmm, I hadn't heard that term before, but based on a quick search I take it
that's the list of data in the pool that is not fully redundant? So if a
2-way mirror vdev lost a half, ev
On 01/11/10 17:42, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Eric Schrock wrote:
No, it's fine. DEGRADED just means the pool is not operating at the
ideal state. By definition a hot spare is always DEGRADED. As long as
the spare itself is ONLINE it's fine.
One more question on this; so the
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Eric Schrock wrote:
> No, it's fine. DEGRADED just means the pool is not operating at the
> ideal state. By definition a hot spare is always DEGRADED. As long as
> the spare itself is ONLINE it's fine.
One more question on this; so there's no way to tell just from the statu
Hi Paul,
Example 11-1 in this section describes how to replace a
disk on an x4500 system:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbcet?a=view
Cindy
On 01/09/10 16:17, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Eric Schrock wrote:
If ZFS removed the drive from the pool, why does the system
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Eric Schrock wrote:
> > If ZFS removed the drive from the pool, why does the system keep
> > complaining about it?
>
> It's not failing in the sense that it's returning I/O errors, but it's
> flaky, so it's attaching and detaching. Most likely it decided to attach
> again and
Paul B. Henson wrote:
We just had our first x4500 disk failure (which of course had to happen
late Friday night ), I've opened a ticket on it but don't expect a
response until Monday so was hoping to verify the hot spare took over
correctly and we still have redundancy pending device replacement.
On Jan 9, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
>
> If ZFS removed the drive from the pool, why does the system keep
> complaining about it?
It's not failing in the sense that it's returning I/O errors, but it's flaky,
so it's attaching and detaching. Most likely it decided to attach again a
We just had our first x4500 disk failure (which of course had to happen
late Friday night ), I've opened a ticket on it but don't expect a
response until Monday so was hoping to verify the hot spare took over
correctly and we still have redundancy pending device replacement.
This is an S10U6 box: