[zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 110. If that is possible, would anyone happen to have the simple command lines to do it quick? I assume I'd be creating another raidz1 and then somehow growing the tank zpool? Does this make sense, or is this stupid from a performance perspective? Should I just have two separate zpools? Ideally I would like to have one massive data storage target. I'd be fine with somehow changing this into a raidz2 as well, I suppose, since I had planned on it being another raidz1 anyway. Or, perhaps I could add tank #2 as a raidz2, and then move all the data off tank #1, and then add disks individually from tank #1 until I have all 14 disks in a single raidz2? Performance is not an absolute must - I can deal with a little bit of overhead. Thanks in advance. [r...@nas01 ~]# zpool status pool: rpool state: ONLINE status: The pool is formatted using an older on-disk format. The pool can still be used, but some features are unavailable. action: Upgrade the pool using 'zpool upgrade'. Once this is done, the pool will no longer be accessible on older software versions. scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t1d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors pool: tank state: ONLINE status: The pool is formatted using an older on-disk format. The pool can still be used, but some features are unavailable. action: Upgrade the pool using 'zpool upgrade'. Once this is done, the pool will no longer be accessible on older software versions. scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM tankONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors [r...@nas01 ~]# zpool list NAMESIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT rpool 149G 11.4G 138G 7% ONLINE - tank 9.50T 9.34T 159G98% ONLINE - [r...@nas01 ~]# ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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. Yes, I probably should upgrade the zpool format too. Currently running snv_104. Also should upgrade to 110. If that is possible, would anyone happen to have the simple command lines to do it quick? I assume I'd be creating another raidz1 and then somehow growing the tank zpool? zpool add tank raidz1 disk_1 disk_2 disk_3 ... (The syntax is just like creating a pool, only with add instead of create.) Does this make sense, or is this stupid from a performance perspective? Should I just have two separate zpools? Ideally I would like to have one massive data storage target. It makes perfect sense. My thumpers have a number of raidz vdevs combined into a single pool. Your performance scales with the number of vdevs, and its better to combine them into a single pool as you combine the performance. Generally, unless you want different behaviour from different pools, it's easier to combine them. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be 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 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 unprotected storage. In particular, you can't grow the existing raidz. What you're doing here is adding a second raidz1 vdev. That's good because the 2nd phase of your storage is just like the first phase. It makes perfect sense. My thumpers have a number of raidz vdevs combined into a single pool. Your performance scales with the number of vdevs, and its better to combine them into a single pool as you combine the performance. Generally, unless you want different behaviour from different pools, it's easier to combine them. so essentially you're tleling me to keep it at raidz1 (not raidz2 as many people usually stress when getting up to a certain # of disks, like 8 or so most people start bringing it up a lot) 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. If you were starting from scratch, then you have a choice between a single raidz2 vdev and a pair of raidz1 vdevs. (Lots of other choices too, but that is really what you're asking here I guess.) With 1.5T drives, I would want a second layer of protection. If you didn't have backups (by which I mean an independent copy of your important data) then raidz2 is strongly indicated. I have a thumper that's a primary fileserver. It has a single pool that is made up of a number of raidz2 vdevs. I'm replacing it with a pair of machines (this gives me system redundancy as well); each one will have a number of raidz1 vdevs because I can always get the data back off the other machine if something goes wrong. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
Harry wrote: However I hit a snag right away. Pulled a 200gb added a 750 but on boot when I get to that screen I see: Press F3 to enter configuration utility Primary channel: WDC WD200-blah-blah 190782 MB Primary secondary: WDC WD750-blah-blah Note the size is missing. And there the boot hangs.. forever. Pressing F3 has no effect whatever. Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com replied: It looks like the card BOIS has written to the dives and expects the same drive to be there. Harry wrote: So it appears I'm stuck. I'm thinking the problem is that the adaptec for some reason needs to be able to report a size and that is whats hanging things up. So I wondered if it might get me past this hang if I were to plug that new 750 into a windows/or linux machine and format it, either as ntfs on windows or just fdisk a partition of the entire drive on linux. Ian replied: Unlikely, ZFS will re-label the drive an the card should be able to work with new drives. How would this relabeling occur. Somehow I need to get past that screen right? Check the BIOS documentation for the card. I mentioned that pressing F3 doesn't do anything. That is, I have now way to enter the configuration tool. I'm not sure what you mean then, except to maybe learn if this card will not work for these drives. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
I mentioned that pressing F3 doesn't do anything. That is, I have now way to enter the configuration tool. Does it work when you first remove the 200GB drive, reboot, press F3 and see what you can do in that configuration tool. It is possible that it first needs to forget the 200GB drive. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 unprotected storage. so you're saying i should add 7 disks to match the existing setup (or at least 2 disks so it has some sort of redundancy) and i would run zpool add tank raidz1 disk1 disk2 disk3 disk4 disk5 disk6 disk7 ... if my goal is to use 7 disks. this would allow it to become part of one large storage pool with two identical types of redundancy setups (separate from each other, like two physically different raidsets combined, though, which is fine) In particular, you can't grow the existing raidz. What you're doing here is adding a second raidz1 vdev. That's good because the 2nd phase of your storage is just like the first phase. i guess this is redundant, but would i be able to see these as one large storage pool, or would i essentially have tank and tank2? is there a way to combine them? just the command above? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
casper@sun.com writes: Does it work when you first remove the 200GB drive, reboot, press F3 and see what you can do in that configuration tool. It is possible that it first needs to forget the 200GB drive. Might be the way. Seems likely given the way you've shown how zfs can remember the real size of a mirror when dealing with different size drives in a mirror. I'll try that next. I've also been told there are sometimes a jumper necessary. The adaptec specs show this controller at 1.5 transfer rate and the drives are sata II 3.gb. I found some info about it suggesting jumpering pins 5-6 would set it to 1.5gb so tried that, but got the same hang at PCI sata card screen as before. And as before pressing F3 does nothing. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
casper@sun.com writes: I mentioned that pressing F3 doesn't do anything. That is, I have now way to enter the configuration tool. Does it work when you first remove the 200GB drive, reboot, press F3 and see what you can do in that configuration tool. It is possible that it first needs to forget the 200GB drive. OK, booted with no sata drives attached. At the press F3 screen, again pressing F3 appears to have no effect. But after a moment two messages saying `no drives found' print out, and then boot proceeds. Once booted up I see the recurring message where I should see a login prompt (I'm setup to boot into console mode). ata_id_common Busy Status 0xfe error 0x0 Repeated 4 times, then after maybe a 2-3 minute wait the regular login prompt appears. There is something more going on that is dragging the machine down so that typing at the prompt is delayed by huge pauses. I'm not really able to find out what it is yet but will post back later after a reboot. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
Have you checked the specs of the 1205 to see what maximum drive size it supports? That's an older card, IIRC, so it might top out at 500gb or something. On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote: casper@sun.com writes: I mentioned that pressing F3 doesn't do anything. That is, I have now way to enter the configuration tool. Does it work when you first remove the 200GB drive, reboot, press F3 and see what you can do in that configuration tool. It is possible that it first needs to forget the 200GB drive. OK, booted with no sata drives attached. At the press F3 screen, again pressing F3 appears to have no effect. But after a moment two messages saying `no drives found' print out, and then boot proceeds. Once booted up I see the recurring message where I should see a login prompt (I'm setup to boot into console mode). ata_id_common Busy Status 0xfe error 0x0 Repeated 4 times, then after maybe a 2-3 minute wait the regular login prompt appears. There is something more going on that is dragging the machine down so that typing at the prompt is delayed by huge pauses. I'm not really able to find out what it is yet but will post back later after a reboot. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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. 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. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] j4200 drive carriers
This is true. Unfortunately, in my experience, controller quality is still very important. ZFS can preserve data all day long, but that doesn't help much if the controller misbehaves (you may have good data that can't be retrieved or manipulated properly - it's happened to me with whitebox hardware). If anyone buys whitebox hardware for ZFS in production, make sure the vendor will give you support/warranty for OpenSolaris/ZFS. On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:33 PM, jpdrawneek j...@drawneek.demon.co.uk wrote: Mertol Ozyoney wrote: But the whole point of zfs is that you can use inexpensive drives and with enough in RAID to make it reliable. Best regards Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email mertol.ozyo...@sun.com -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Richard Elling Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:24 PM To: John-Paul Drawneek Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] j4200 drive carriers John-Paul Drawneek wrote: the J series is far to new to be hitting ebay yet. Any alot of people will not be buying the J series for obvious reasons The obvious reason is that Sun cannot service random disk drives you buy from Fry's (or elsewhere). People who value data tend to value service contracts for disk drives. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] is zpool export/import | faster than rsync or cp
zfs send/recv *is* faster (especially since b105) than rsync, especially when you are dealing with lots of small files. rsync has to check each file, which can take a long time - zfs send/recv just moves blocks. 2009/3/27 Ahmed Kamal email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com: ZFS replication basics at http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=984 Regards On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote: [...] Harry wrote: Now I'm wondering if the export/import sub commands might not be a good bit faster. Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com answered: I think you are thinking of zfs send/receive. I've never done a direct comparison, but zfs send/receive would be my preferred way to move data between pools. Why is that? I'm too new to know what all it encompasses (and a bit dense to boot) Fajar A. Nugraha fa...@fajar.net writes: On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote: Now I'm wondering if the export/import sub commands might not be a good bit faster. I believe the greatest advantage of zfs send/receive over rsync is not about speed, but rather it's on zfs send -R, which would (from man page) Generate a replication stream package, which will replicate the specified filesystem, and all descen- dant file systems, up to the named snapshot. When received, all properties, snapshots, descendent file systems, and clones are preserved. pretty much allows you to clone a complete pool preserving its structure. As usual, compressing the backup stream (whether rsync or zfs) might help reduce transfer time a lot. My favorite is lzop (since it's very fast), but gzip should work as well. Nice... good reasons it appears. Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl writes: Hello Harry, [...] As Ian pointed you want zfs send|receive and not import/export. For a first full copy zfs send not necessarily will be noticeably faster than rsync but it depends on data. If for example you have milions of small files zfs send could be much faster then rsync. But it shouldn't be slower in any case. zfs send|receive really shines when it comes to sending incremental changes. Now that would be something to make it stand out. Can you tell me a bit more about that would work..I mean would you just keep receiving only changes at one end and how do they appear on the filesystem. There is a backup tool called `rsnapshot' that uses rsync but creates hard links to all unchanged files and moves only changes to changed files. This is all put in a serial directory system and ends up taking a tiny fraction of the space that full backups would take, yet retains a way to get to unchanged files right in the same directory (the hard link). Is what your talking about similar in some way. = * = * = * = To all posters... many thanks for the input. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 doesn't seem to be much point to having the second half of your storage being more protected. 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. Bob #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. #2: raidz2 isn't always wise to choose. It's a matter of performance, space, security requirements. 7+1 is fine for raidz1. If he was pushing 10 data disks that'd be another story. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 want? Using the command above that Peter gave you would get you a result similar to this NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM storage2ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 ad16ONLINE 0 0 0 ad14ONLINE 0 0 0 ad10ONLINE 0 0 0 ad12ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 da2 ONLINE 0 0 0 da0 ONLINE 0 0 0 da1 ONLINE 0 0 0 da3 ONLINE 0 0 0 The actual setup is a RAIDZ1 of 1.5TB drives and a RAIDZ1 of 500GB drives with the data striped across the two RAIDZs. In your case it would be 7 drives in each RAIDZ based on what you said before but I don't have *that* much money for my home file server. so essentially you're tleling me to keep it at raidz1 (not raidz2 as many people usually stress when getting up to a certain # of disks, like 8 or so most people start bringing it up a lot) 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes: Have you checked the specs of the 1205 to see what maximum drive size it supports? That's an older card, IIRC, so it might top out at 500gb or something. I did yes, all it really says is that is supports drives larger than 137gb. http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/support/sata/sata_host/ASH-1205SA/ But it also says its top end transfer rate is 1.5 gb. The new drives are 3.0gb. I'm told there is a possibility of setting a jumper to make sata II work as sata I. I've tried one jumper position I found some info on here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=enrlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS273q=WD+Sata+II+jumpersbtnG=Search The direct URL is too long to post here but the one above will get you there. Its the top one on the page there. And then Figure 4 in the pdf. I tried jumping 5-6 but still got the same behavior when the Sata controller screen (Press F3 to configure) showed up. It sees the drive by name but not the size and there it hangs. Casper has suggested I pull both old sata drives and reboot, possibly allowing the hardware to `forget' those drives. I'm doing that now as reported earlier in the thread. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 drive. The small difference between RAID types does not seem like enough to worry about. If it was a mix between raidz2 and mirrors then there is more cause for concern. It is true that if the performance of the vdevs is not well balanced, then some vdevs could fill up faster than others when the system is under extremely heavy write loads. #2: raidz2 isn't always wise to choose. It's a matter of performance, space, security requirements. 7+1 is fine for raidz1. If he was pushing 10 data disks that'd be another story. Many in the industry have already declared RAID5 to be unsafe at any speed with today's huge SATA disk drives. The data recovery model for raidz1 is similar to RAID5. If the user can afford it, then raidz2 offers considerably more peace of mind. If you are using 750GB+ SATA drives then your 7+1 is fine for raidz1 notion does not seem so bright. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com writes: Once booted up I see the recurring message where I should see a login prompt (I'm setup to boot into console mode). ata_id_common Busy Status 0xfe error 0x0 Repeated 4 times, then after maybe a 2-3 minute wait the regular login prompt appears. There is something more going on that is dragging the machine down so that typing at the prompt is delayed by huge pauses. I'm not really able to find out what it is yet but will post back later after a reboot. Those 4 lines continue to appear on ever boot now.. (still with old 200gb sata drives out. Seems when the boot prompt does appear there is something dragging down the os making logging in really sluggish. It appears to be the fmd daemon running periodically and driving resource drain on cpu up to 99 percent. That seems to continue to occur for at least several cycles watching it in `top'. They last maybe close to 1 minute then disappear for a while. Several minutes at least. The cylces seem to keep coming after being booted up for 10 minutes now. I'm not sure which logs to look in to see whats happing. But earlier today these showed up in /var/adm/messages: Mar 28 09:38:25 zfs fmd: [ID 441519 daemon.error] SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-D3, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major Mar 28 09:38:25 zfs IMPACT: Fault tolerance of the pool may be compromised. The console login continues to be nearly useless with the delays and pauses while typing. However ssh in and the terminal I get seem to be less effected, or even un-effected so I can do things in some kind or reasonable way. I'm really not sure what to do though. I did `zpool destroy thatpool' on the pool that was on the sata drives. That appears to have worked, but didn't help with resource drain coming from `fmd' The tail of the log pointed to by svcs -l system/fmd shows: (/var/svc/log/system-fmd:default.log) [...] [ Mar 28 09:20:31 Enabled. ] [ Mar 28 09:25:11 Executing start method (/usr/lib/fm/fmd/fmd). ] [ Mar 28 09:28:24 Method start exited with status 0. ] [ Mar 28 09:53:50 Enabled. ] [ Mar 28 09:54:50 Executing start method (/usr/lib/fm/fmd/fmd). ] [ Mar 28 09:55:44 Method start exited with status 0. ] [ Mar 28 09:59:21 Stopping because service disabled. ] [ Mar 28 09:59:21 Executing stop method (:kill). ] [ Mar 28 10:01:09 Enabled. ] [ Mar 28 10:02:17 Executing start method (/usr/lib/fm/fmd/fmd). ] [ Mar 28 10:02:49 Method start exited with status 0. ] I have no idea is that is normal or what. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 the time and effort to recover it. Multiple terrabytes of data takes quite a long time to recover at perhaps a few tens of megabytes per second and critical backup resources are consumed in the mean time. Meanwhile, business goes on. Do the math in advance and decide if you are really willing to put yourself in the middle of a long recovery situation. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 matter of performance, space, security requirements. 7+1 is fine for raidz1. If he was pushing 10 data disks that'd be another story. 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 disks (roughly of course) to parity. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 disks (roughly of course) to parity. Hopefully you consider all of the costs before making this sort of decision. If you are a lousy tipper you can't expect very good service the next time you come to visit. :-) If 14 disks cost a lot, then you should carefully balance the cost of the wasted disk against the cost of lost performance or the cost of lost availability. In many business environments, the potential for lost availability more than justifies purchasing more wasted disk. In many business environments, the potential for lousy performance more than justifies purchasing more wasted disk. Any good businessman should be able to specify a dollars per hour cost to the business if the storage is not available, or unable to provide sufficient performance to meet business needs. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
what's the output of 'fmadm faulty'? On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote: Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com writes: Once booted up I see the recurring message where I should see a login prompt (I'm setup to boot into console mode). ata_id_common Busy Status 0xfe error 0x0 Repeated 4 times, then after maybe a 2-3 minute wait the regular login prompt appears. There is something more going on that is dragging the machine down so that typing at the prompt is delayed by huge pauses. I'm not really able to find out what it is yet but will post back later after a reboot. Those 4 lines continue to appear on ever boot now.. (still with old 200gb sata drives out. Seems when the boot prompt does appear there is something dragging down the os making logging in really sluggish. It appears to be the fmd daemon running periodically and driving resource drain on cpu up to 99 percent. That seems to continue to occur for at least several cycles watching it in `top'. They last maybe close to 1 minute then disappear for a while. Several minutes at least. The cylces seem to keep coming after being booted up for 10 minutes now. I'm not sure which logs to look in to see whats happing. But earlier today these showed up in /var/adm/messages: Mar 28 09:38:25 zfs fmd: [ID 441519 daemon.error] SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-D3, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major Mar 28 09:38:25 zfs IMPACT: Fault tolerance of the pool may be compromised. The console login continues to be nearly useless with the delays and pauses while typing. However ssh in and the terminal I get seem to be less effected, or even un-effected so I can do things in some kind or reasonable way. I'm really not sure what to do though. I did `zpool destroy thatpool' on the pool that was on the sata drives. That appears to have worked, but didn't help with resource drain coming from `fmd' The tail of the log pointed to by svcs -l system/fmd shows: (/var/svc/log/system-fmd:default.log) [...] [ Mar 28 09:20:31 Enabled. ] [ Mar 28 09:25:11 Executing start method (/usr/lib/fm/fmd/fmd). ] [ Mar 28 09:28:24 Method start exited with status 0. ] [ Mar 28 09:53:50 Enabled. ] [ Mar 28 09:54:50 Executing start method (/usr/lib/fm/fmd/fmd). ] [ Mar 28 09:55:44 Method start exited with status 0. ] [ Mar 28 09:59:21 Stopping because service disabled. ] [ Mar 28 09:59:21 Executing stop method (:kill). ] [ Mar 28 10:01:09 Enabled. ] [ Mar 28 10:02:17 Executing start method (/usr/lib/fm/fmd/fmd). ] [ Mar 28 10:02:49 Method start exited with status 0. ] I have no idea is that is normal or what. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs scheduled replication script?
I have a backup system using zfs send/receive (I know there are pros and cons to that, but it's suitable for what I need). What I have now is a script which runs daily, do zfs send, compress and write it to a file, then transfer it with ftp to a remote host. It does full backup every 1st, and do incremental (with 1st as reference) after that. It works, but not quite resource-effective (for example, the full backup every month, and the big size of incremental backup on 30th). I'm thinking of changing it to a script which can automate replication of a zfs pool or filesystem via zfs send/receive to a remote host (via ssh or whatever). It should be smart enough to choose between full and incremental, and choose which snapshot to base the incremental stream from (in case a scheduled incremental is missed), preferably able to use snapshots created by zfs/auto-snapshot smf service. To prevent re-inventing the wheel, does such script exists already? I prever not to use AVS as I can't use on existing zfs pool. Regards, Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes: what's the output of 'fmadm faulty'? It hangs for maybe 30 seconds, then returns the prompt. And again now on this boot, before the console prompt appears I see: ata_id_common: Busy Status 0xfe error 0x0 Repeated 4 times. And again, the console prompt is barely usable. login type username return A full minute or so later, the passwd part comes up Enter passwd and another minute or so to login. I don't see fmd making huge cpu resource drain so not sure what is dragging down the login prompt. `top' shows 99.6 % idle even 99.8 but still the login prompt is very sluggish. I can't really even work with it, even after finally getting logged in its just too aggravating to wait that minute or so between typing something and seeing it appear on the cmd line. Fortunately ssh works and that terminal seems un-affected. But it appears I have done major damage somehow by pulling out those 2 drives. Or something else I've unwittingly done. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] j4200 drive carriers
b == Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes: b ZFS can preserve data all day long, but that doesn't help much b if the controller misbehaves the most common kind of controller, or rather driver, misbehavior is to time out commands to failed drives while ZFS waits inappropriately long, or to freeze access to drives other than the drive that failed, or to fail to support hot-swap properly. These problems affect availability (no interruptions in data access), not reliability (once put there, stuff stays there, but maybe only readable after manual intervention). If the box is doing a ~throwaway job like tape emulation for backup, good reliability with crap availability may be more acceptable than the same situation on a production box. b it's happened to me with whitebox hardware). and also with X4500, taking 1+ years to not completely fix, and closed-source driver so you cannot try to fix it yourself. though there seem to be fewer complaints with the new LSI-based controllers. Paying a premium for good integration makes more sense if the integration was actually good in the past. I'd also pay a premium for something like VA Linux which bundled hardware with stable revisions of good-quality open-source drivers, but I guess that didn't work out well for VA. It makes some sense but less sense to pay a premium for a situation in which the integration could theoretically be good even though it hasn't been in the past, because there may be FUD problems that were solved (both presently and in the past) without your hearing about them so you are actually getting something for the premium you've paid, but $vendor cannot tell you exactly what you are getting because knowing what problems were fixed would make it easier for you to fix them yourself without paying. That's a pretty damn cynical outlook on the situation, but it seems to be a realistic/common one. That said why fuss about drive cost? If the drive-to-chassis lock-in is effective, then just accept the tying as done and compare cost/TB with Xtore or Dell FC or whatever. The real interop/tying thing I see needing untangling in ZFS is for FC and iSCSI to work well---if this were done then ZFS could be combined with a variety of competing physical storage, and it's reasonable to expect it be well-integrated with non-Sun FC/iSCSI---I think the claim ``well there is FUD so you have to buy Sun FC targets'' will not fly so well in that case because you are already paying an integration premium to both vendors and might reasonably expect some combinations of them to claim and deliver good interoperability. pgp2XIRwL36hQ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 volume. Inconsistent performance can come from many things, including a single balky disk drive. The small difference between RAID types does not seem like enough to worry about. If it was a mix between raidz2 and mirrors then there is more cause for concern. It is true that if the performance of the vdevs is not well balanced, then some vdevs could fill up faster than others when the system is under extremely heavy write loads. An extra parity disk is hardly a small difference. You pay your penalty at some point for the extra parity, and it will come back to bite you in the ass. It's why NOBODY including Sun, supports it on enterprise arrays. #2: raidz2 isn't always wise to choose. It's a matter of performance, space, security requirements. 7+1 is fine for raidz1. If he was pushing 10 data disks that'd be another story. Many in the industry have already declared RAID5 to be unsafe at any speed with today's huge SATA disk drives. The data recovery model for raidz1 is similar to RAID5. If the user can afford it, then raidz2 offers considerably more peace of mind. If you are using 750GB+ SATA drives then your 7+1 is fine for raidz1 notion does not seem so bright. Many in the industry make their money selling you disk drives, of course they're going to declare you need to buy more. The math you ask people to do points towards a 7+1 being more than acceptable if you have a hot-spare. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
* 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. If you were starting from scratch, then you have a choice between a single raidz2 vdev and a pair of raidz1 vdevs. (Lots of other choices too, but that is really what you're asking here I guess.) I've had too many joint failures in my life to put much faith in raidz1, especially with 7 disks that likely come from the same manufacturing batch and might exhibit the same flaws. A single-redundancy system of 7 disks (gross) has too high a MTTDL for my taste. If you can sell yourself on raidz2 and the loss of two more disks' worth of data -- a loss which IMO is more than made up for by the gain in security -- consider this technique: 1. build a new zpool of a single raidz2; 2. migrate your data from the old zpool to the new one; 3. destroy the old zpool, releasing its volumes; 4. use 'zpool add' to add those old volumes to the new zpool as a second raidz2 vdev (see Richard Elling's previous post). Now you have a single zpool consisting of two raidz2 vdevs. The migration in step 2 can be done either by 'zfs send'ing each zfs in the zpool, or by constructing analogous zfs in the new zpool and rsyncing the files across in one go. -- -D.d...@uchicago.eduNSITUniversity of Chicago ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs scheduled replication script?
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha fa...@fajar.net wrote: I have a backup system using zfs send/receive (I know there are pros and cons to that, but it's suitable for what I need). What I have now is a script which runs daily, do zfs send, compress and write it to a file, then transfer it with ftp to a remote host. It does full backup every 1st, and do incremental (with 1st as reference) after that. It works, but not quite resource-effective (for example, the full backup every month, and the big size of incremental backup on 30th). I'm thinking of changing it to a script which can automate replication of a zfs pool or filesystem via zfs send/receive to a remote host (via ssh or whatever). It should be smart enough to choose between full and incremental, and choose which snapshot to base the incremental stream from (in case a scheduled incremental is missed), preferably able to use snapshots created by zfs/auto-snapshot smf service. To prevent re-inventing the wheel, does such script exists already? I prever not to use AVS as I can't use on existing zfs pool. Regards, Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss The ZFS automatic snapshot tools have the ability to execute any command after a snapshot has taken place, such as ZFS send. However, I ran into some issues, as it wasn't strictly designed for that and didn't handle errors very well. I have since modified some scripts out there, and rolled them into my own, you can see it here at pastebin.com: http://pastebin.com/m3871e478 Inspiration: http://blogs.sun.com/constantin/entry/zfs_replicator_script_new_edition http://blogs.sun.com/timf/en_IE/entry/zfs_automatic_snapshots_in_nv Those are some good resources, from that, you can make something work that is tailored to your environment. -- Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
casper@sun.com writes: I mentioned that pressing F3 doesn't do anything. That is, I have now way to enter the configuration tool. Does it work when you first remove the 200GB drive, reboot, press F3 and see what you can do in that configuration tool. It is possible that it first needs to forget the 200GB drive. It was worth a try... but as posted further along in the thread I ran into a bunch of mess going that route. Booting without the drives causes several kinds of things to happen that I don't understand. bootup passes the `Press F3 screen' Ok after a brief pause. But when I get to the consol login I see a line like: ata_id_common Busy Status 0xfe error 0x0 Repeated 4 times then after a 30 second or so pause comes the login prompt. But the prompt is very unresponsive. I mean if I type into it takes nearly a full minute or more to show up So after taking a couple minutes getting logged in, any activity at the command line remains very sluggish. Fortunately though, I can ssh into the box and that terminal seems to be un-effected. Watching with `top' I see the fmd daemon running in a recurring cycle and each time it comes on it drives the resource usage up into the high 90s for a minute or two. It appears to continue to cycle for at least 15 minutes at which point I rebooted again. It appears that if I boot without the drives installed I will continue to have this happen. But re-insert the 2 drives in the original order and it all goes away. Some of this may be repititious since I've been dicussing the sata card on another (non-osol [gentoo.user]) list too and have kind of lost track of what all got posted where. But first, both of you have really been patient and taken a fair bit of time to explain things... and I really appreciate it... so thanks. Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes: what's the output of 'fmadm faulty'? You may have already seen my answer to that, but wanted to let you both know that I've learned that at least one other computer user has posted information to the effect that my card the Adaptec 1205sa which apparently has an sil3112a chip is incompatable with Seagate 750 sata drives ... mine are WD but its beginning to look like this card may not support the newer sata drives. I'm starting to think I may have just got the wrong card and should just throw in the towel and get something known to work with my hardware. I did attempt to learn that before buying and did post at least twice on the opensolaris groups trying to find out what would work for sure on my hardware. Either I didn't get replies or no one knew, I don't remember which now. Readers may have thought I was just too lazy to use the HCL but the truth is there is precious little on it for my hardware. But on the off chance either of you or maybe someone following along will know of a sata card known to work with my hardware... I'm listing the hardware here : Athlon64 2.2ghz 3400+ - Aopen AK86-L mobo - Topped out at 3gb CORSAIR ram (The onboard sata controller is not recognized by osol - hence the need for sata PCI card.). Incidentally, I did find that Adaptec 1205sa on the HCL, listed by one user who was able to boot with it installed and have drives recognized. The hardware was NOT a real match for mine but I took a chance on it anyway... and it does work, at least with older/smaller sata drives. The specs on the 1205sa say that it will handle drives larger than 137gb and that its top transfer rate is 1.5gb. So its not really clear what its' upper limit, if any, is far as size. But it is an older card and may predate sata II. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
Blake wrote: Have you checked the specs of the 1205 to see what maximum drive size it supports? That's an older card, IIRC, so it might top out at 500gb or something. Please stop top-posting to threads where everyone else is normal-posting, it mucks up the flow of the thread. Thanks, -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: 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 disks (roughly of course) to parity. Hopefully you consider all of the costs before making this sort of decision. If you are a lousy tipper you can't expect very good service the next time you come to visit. :-) If 14 disks cost a lot, then you should carefully balance the cost of the wasted disk against the cost of lost performance or the cost of lost availability. In many business environments, the potential for lost availability more than justifies purchasing more wasted disk. In many business environments, the potential for lousy performance more than justifies purchasing more wasted disk. Any good businessman should be able to specify a dollars per hour cost to the business if the storage is not available, or unable to provide sufficient performance to meet business needs. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
Harry Putnam wrote: I'm starting to think I may have just got the wrong card and should just throw in the towel and get something known to work with my hardware. That sounds like a good plan! Using older SATA controllers with SATA II drives may work, but there aren't any guarantees. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com writes: Harry Putnam wrote: I'm starting to think I may have just got the wrong card and should just throw in the towel and get something known to work with my hardware. That sounds like a good plan! Using older SATA controllers with SATA II drives may work, but there aren't any guarantees. Finding a sataII card is proving to be very difficult. The reason is that I only have PCI no PCI express. I haven't see a single one listed as SATAII compatible and have spent a bit time googling. I'd settle for a PCI card that someone can vouch for. I did find a message on an Australian overclockers list that indicated that fellow had used sil3114 (mine is 3112a) card to run SATAII at 640gb. But of course those guys are all talking about `Windows' of one strain or another so may or may not mean much. I don't supposed you'd have a tip about a PCI sata card capable of handling newer SATAII would you? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 acceptable. I can see that 14 disks costs a lot for a home storage array but to you the data on your home storage array may be just as important as data on some businesses enterprise storage array. In fact, it may be even more critical since it seems unlikely that you will have an effective backup system in place like large businesses do. The main problem with raidz1 is that if a disk fails and you replace it, that if a second disk substantially fails during resilvering (which needs to successfully read all data on remaining disks) then your ZFS pool (or at least part of the files) may be toast. The more data which must be read during resilvering, the higher the probability that there will be a failure. If 12TB of data needs to be read to resilver a 1TB disk, then that is a lot of successful reading which needs to go on. In order to lessen risk, you can schedule a periodic zfs scrub via a cron job so that there is less probabily of encountering data which can not be read. This will not save you from entirely failed disk drives though. As far as Tim's post that NOBODY recommends using better than RAID5, I hardly consider companies like IBM and NetApp to be NOBODY. Only Sun RAID hardware seems to lack RAID6, but Sun offers ZFS's raidz2 so it does not matter. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs scheduled replication script?
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net wrote: I have since modified some scripts out there, and rolled them into my own, you can see it here at pastebin.com: http://pastebin.com/m3871e478 Thanks Brent. Your script seems to handle failed replication and locking pretty well. It doesn't seem to log WHY the replication failed though, so I think there should be something that captures stderr on line 91. One more question, is there anything on that script that requires ksh? A quick glance seems to indicate that it will work with bash as well. Regards, Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Zfs using java
Howard Huntley wrote: I once installed ZFS on my home Sun Blade 100 and it worked fine on the sun blade 100 running solaris 10. I later reinstalled Solaris 10 09 version and created zpool which is not visible using the the java control panel. When I attempt to run the Java control panel to manage the zfs system I receive an error message stating "!Launch Error, No application is registered with this sun Java or I have no rights to use any applications that are registered, see my sys admin." Can any one tell me how to get this straightened out. I have been fooling around with it for some time now. Is any one is Jacksonville, Florida?? -- signature1 Howard Huntley Jr. MCP, MCSE Micro-Computer Systems Specialist -- signature1 Howard Huntley Jr. MCP, MCSE Micro-Computer Systems Specialist ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Growing a zpool mirror breaks on Adaptec 1205sa PCI
On 03/28/09 20:01, Harry Putnam wrote: Finding a sataII card is proving to be very difficult. The reason is that I only have PCI no PCI express. I haven't see a single one listed as SATAII compatible and have spent a bit time googling. It's even worse if you have an old SPARC system. We've had great results with some LSI LOGIC SAS3041XL-S cards we got on E-Bay in conjunction with 3x1.5TB Seagate drives, for 2.7TiB of raidz. The combination proved faster than mirrored 10,000 RPM SCSI disks using UFS, in an unscientific benchmark (bonnie). I don't think this LSI controller is SATA II, but it has no problems with the 1.5TB Seagates; they are Sun branded cards and worked right of of the box in 3.3V 66MHz PCI slots. 2.7TiB of raidz for around $400. Amazing... And ZFS is just plain incredible - makes every other file system look so antiquated :-) Hope this helps -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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 I do not need extreme performance like a database for example. 45mb/sec would even be acceptable. I can see that 14 disks costs a lot for a home storage array but to you the data on your home storage array may be just as important as data on some businesses enterprise storage array. In fact, it may be even more critical since it seems unlikely that you will have an effective backup system in place like large businesses do. Well I might back up the more important stuff offsite. But in theory it's all replaceable. Just would be a pain. Could I setup a raidz2 on the new zdev then destroy the old one and then raidz2 that technically if I want? Then both sets would have double redundancy, if I was feeling paranoid. But raid5 has served people well for a long time... Is resilvering speed roughly the same as a raid5 controller rebuild? The main problem with raidz1 is that if a disk fails and you replace it, that if a second disk substantially fails during resilvering (which needs to successfully read all data on remaining disks) then your ZFS pool (or at least part of the files) may be toast. The more data which must be read during resilvering, the higher the probability that there will be a failure. If 12TB of data needs to be read to resilver a 1TB disk, then that This is good info to know. I guess I'm willing to take the risk of a resilver. It's got a dedicated quad core proc doing nothing else than exporting samba and zfs... I wonder how long it would take. In order to lessen risk, you can schedule a periodic zfs scrub via a cron job so that there is less probabily of encountering data which can not be read. This will not save you from entirely failed disk drives though. I do a weekly scrub and an fmadm faulty every 5 or 10 mins to email me if anything comes up... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can this be done?
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. 45mb/sec would even be acceptable. I can see that 14 disks costs a lot for a home storage array but to you the data on your home storage array may be just as important as data on some businesses enterprise storage array. In fact, it may be even more critical since it seems unlikely that you will have an effective backup system in place like large businesses do. The main problem with raidz1 is that if a disk fails and you replace it, that if a second disk substantially fails during resilvering (which needs to successfully read all data on remaining disks) then your ZFS pool (or at least part of the files) may be toast. The more data which must be read during resilvering, the higher the probability that there will be a failure. If 12TB of data needs to be read to resilver a 1TB disk, then that is a lot of successful reading which needs to go on. This is a very good point for anyone following this and wondering why RAIDZ2 is a good idea. I have seen over the years several large RAID 5 hardware arrays go belly up as a 2nd drive fails during a rebuild with the end result of the entire RAID set being rendered useless. If you can afford it then you should use it. RAID6 or RAIDZ2 was made for big SATA drives. If you do use it though, one should make sure that you have reasonable CPU as it does require a bit more grunt to run over RAIDZ. The bigger the disks and the bigger the stripe the more likely you are to encounter a issue during a rebuild of a failed drive. plain and simple. In order to lessen risk, you can schedule a periodic zfs scrub via a cron job so that there is less probabily of encountering data which can not be read. This will not save you from entirely failed disk drives though. As far as Tim's post that NOBODY recommends using better than RAID5, I hardly consider companies like IBM and NetApp to be NOBODY. Only Sun RAID hardware seems to lack RAID6, but Sun offers ZFS's raidz2 so it does not matter. Plenty of Sun hardware comes with RAID6 support out of the box these days Bob. Certainly all of the 4140, 4150, 4240 and 4250 2 socket x86 /x64 systems have hardware controllers for this. Also all of the 6140's, 6540 and 6780's disk arrays do also have RAID 6 if they have Crystal firmware and of course the Open Storage 7000 series machines do as well being that they are Opensolaris and ZFS based. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- _ Scott Lawson Systems Architect Information Communication Technology Services Manukau Institute of Technology Private Bag 94006 South Auckland Mail Centre Manukau 2240 Auckland New Zealand Phone : +64 09 968 7611 Fax: +64 09 968 7641 Mobile : +64 27 568 7611 mailto:sc...@manukau.ac.nz http://www.manukau.ac.nz __ perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' __ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
