[zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers
Now the test for the Vertex 2 Pro. This was fun. For more explanation please see the thread Crucial RealSSD C300 and cache flush? This time I made sure the device is attached via 3GBit SATA. This is also only a short test. I'll retest after some weeks of usage. cache enabled, 32 buffers, 64k blocks linear write, random data: 96 MB/s linear read, random data: 206 MB/s linear write, zero data: 234 MB/s linear read, zero data: 255 MB/s random write, random data: 84 MB/s random read, random data: 180 MB/s random write, zero data: 224 MB/s randow read, zero data: 190 MB/s cache enabled, 32 buffers, 4k blocks linear write, random data: 93 MB/s linear read, random data: 138 MB/s linear write, zero data: 113 MB/s linear read, zero data: 141 MB/s random write, random data: 41 MB/s (10300 ops/s) random read, random data: 76 MB/s (19000 ops/s) random write, zero data: 54 MB/s (13800 ops/s) random read, zero data: 91 MB/s (22800 ops/s) cache enabled, 1 buffer, 4k blocks linear write, random data: 62 MB/s (15700 ops/s) linear read, random data: 32 MB/s (8000 ops/s) linear write, zero data: 64 MB/s (16100 ops/s) linear read, zero data: 45 MB/s (11300 ops/s) random write, random data: 14 MB/s (3400 ops/s) random read, random data: 22 MB/s (5600 ops/s) random write, zero data: 19 MB/s (4500 ops/s) random read, zero data: 21 MB/s (5100 ops/s) cache enabled, 1 buffer, 4k blocks, with cache flushes: linear write, random data, flush after every write: 5700 ops/s linear write, zero data, flush after every write: 5700 ops/s linear write, random data, flush after every 4th write: 8500 ops/s linear write, zero data, flush after every 4th write: 8500 ops/s Some remarks: The random op numbers have to be read with care: - reading occurs in the same order as the writing before - the ops are not aligned to any specific boundary The device also passed the write-loss-test: after 5 repeats no data has been lost. It doesn't make any difference if the cache is enabled or disabled, so it might be worth to tune zfs to not issue cache flushes. Conclusion: This device will make an excellent slog device. I'll order them today ;) --Arne ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS root recovery SMI/EFI label weirdness
I've been testing the ZFS root recovery using 10u6 and have come across a very odd problem. When following this procedure I the disk I am setting up my rpool on keeps reverting to an EFI label. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/ghzur?l=ena=view Here is what the exact steps I am doing; boot net -s # mount -F nfs remote-system:/ipool/snapshots /mnt # format -e (Change the label to SMI and check after) # prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s0 * /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s0 partition map * * Dimensions: * 512 bytes/sector * 424 sectors/track * 24 tracks/cylinder * 10176 sectors/cylinder * 14089 cylinders * 14087 accessible cylinders * * Flags: * 1: unmountable * 10: read-only * * First SectorLast * Partition Tag FlagsSector CountSector Mount Directory 2 501 0 143349312 143349311 6 400 0 143349312 143349311 # zpool create -f -o failmode=continue -R /a -m legacy -o cachefile=/etc/zfs/zpool.cache rpool c1t0d0 # cat /mnt/rpool.2406 | zfs receive -Fdu rpool # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 5.55G 61.4G96K /a/rpool rp...@2406 0 -96K - rpool/ROOT 4.40G 61.4G20K legacy rpool/r...@2406 0 -20K - rpool/ROOT/beroot 4.40G 61.4G 4.40G /a rpool/ROOT/ber...@2406 0 - 4.40G - rpool/dump 1.00G 61.4G 1.00G - rpool/d...@2406 0 - 1.00G - rpool/export 147M 61.4G 147M /a/export rpool/exp...@2406 0 - 147M - rpool/export/home 20K 61.4G20K /a/export/home rpool/export/h...@2406 0 -20K - rpool/swap16K 61.4G16K - rpool/s...@2406 0 -16K - # zpool set bootfs=rpool/ROOT/beroot rpool cannot set property for 'rpool': property 'bootfs' not supported on EFI labeled devices # prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s0 * /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s0 partition map * * Dimensions: * 512 bytes/sector * 143374738 sectors * 143374671 accessible sectors * * Flags: * 1: unmountable * 10: read-only * * Unallocated space: * First SectorLast * Sector CountSector * 34 222 255 * * First SectorLast * Partition Tag FlagsSector CountSector Mount Directory 0 400256 143358065 143358320 8 1100 143358321 16384 143374704 # If I destory the rpool and go back into format -e the label is set to EFI as confirmed by the vtoc above! I'm stumped by this one. Is this a known problem with 10u6? Cheers. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root recovery SMI/EFI label weirdness
I've discovered the source of the problem. zpool create -f -o failmode=continue -R /a -m legacy -o cachefile=/etc/zfs/zpool.cache rpool c1t0d0 It seems a root pool must only be created on a slice. Therefore zpool create -f -o failmode=continue -R /a -m legacy -o cachefile=/etc/zfs/zpool.cache rpool c1t0d0s0 will work. I've been reading through some of the ZFS root installation stuff and can't find a note that explicitly states this although a bit of bing'ing and I found a thread that confirmed this. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Maximum zfs send/receive throughput
It seems we are hitting a boundary with zfs send/receive over a network link (10Gb/s). We can see peak values of up to 150MB/s, but on average about 40-50MB/s are replicated. This is far away from the bandwidth that a 10Gb link can offer. Is it possible, that ZFS is giving replication a too low priority/throttling it too much? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Maximum zfs send/receive throughput
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Mika Borner It seems we are hitting a boundary with zfs send/receive over a network link (10Gb/s). We can see peak values of up to 150MB/s, but on average about 40-50MB/s are replicated. This is far away from the bandwidth that a 10Gb link can offer. Is it possible, that ZFS is giving replication a too low priority/throttling it too much? I don't think this is called replication, so ... careful about terminology. zfs send can go as fast as your hardware is able to read. If you'd like to know how fast your hardware is, try this: zfs send somefilesystem | pv -i 30 /dev/null (You might want to install pv from opencsw or blastwave.) I think, in your case, you'll see something around 40-50MB/s I will also add this much: If you send the original snapshot of your complete filesystem, it'll probably go very fast. (Much faster than 40-50 MB/s). Because all those blocks are essentially sequential blocks on disk. When you're sending incrementals ... They are essentially more fragmented ... so the total throughput is lower. The disks have to perform a greater random IO percentage. I have a very fast server, and my zfs send is about half as fast as yours. In both cases, it's enormously faster than some other backup tool, like tar or rsync or whatever. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Maximum zfs send/receive throughput
On 25.06.2010 14:32, Mika Borner wrote: It seems we are hitting a boundary with zfs send/receive over a network link (10Gb/s). We can see peak values of up to 150MB/s, but on average about 40-50MB/s are replicated. This is far away from the bandwidth that a 10Gb link can offer. Is it possible, that ZFS is giving replication a too low priority/throttling it too much? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss you can probably improve overall performance by using mbuffer [1] to stream the data over the network. At least some people have reported increased performance. mbuffer will buffer the datastream and disconnect zfs send operations from network latencies. Get it there: original source: http://www.maier-komor.de/mbuffer.html binary package: http://www.opencsw.org/packages/CSWmbuffer/ - Thomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers
Conclusion: This device will make an excellent slog device. I'll order them today ;) I have one and i love it...I sliced it though, used 9 gb for ZIL and the rest for L2ARC (my server is on a smallish network with about 10 clients) It made a huge difference in NFS performance and other stuff as well (for instance, doing something like du will run a TON faster than before) For the money, it's a GREAT deal. I am very impressed --Arne ___ 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] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers
On 25 Jun 2010, at 15:23, Thomas Burgess wonsl...@gmail.commailto:wonsl...@gmail.com wrote: Conclusion: This device will make an excellent slog device. I'll order them today ;) I have one and i love it...I sliced it though, used 9 gb for ZIL and the rest for L2ARC (my server is on a smallish network with about 10 clients) It made a huge difference in NFS performance and other stuff as well (for instance, doing something like du will run a TON faster than before) For the money, it's a GREAT deal. I am very impressed --Arne ___ zfs-discuss mailing list mailto:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.orgzfs-discuss@opensolaris.orgmailto:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discusshttp://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ATT1..c Would be great if someone could test the SLC EX version of this drive. ---Przem ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root recovery SMI/EFI label weirdness
On Jun 25, 2010, at 4:44 AM, Sean . wrote: I've discovered the source of the problem. zpool create -f -o failmode=continue -R /a -m legacy -o cachefile=/etc/zfs/zpool.cache rpool c1t0d0 It seems a root pool must only be created on a slice. Therefore zpool create -f -o failmode=continue -R /a -m legacy -o cachefile=/etc/zfs/zpool.cache rpool c1t0d0s0 will work. I've been reading through some of the ZFS root installation stuff and can't find a note that explicitly states this although a bit of bing'ing and I found a thread that confirmed this. See the ZFS Administration Guide section on Creating a ZFS Root Pool, first bullet + Disks used for the root pool must have a VTOC (SMI) label and the pool must be created with disk slices -- richard -- Richard Elling rich...@nexenta.com +1-760-896-4422 ZFS and NexentaStor training, Rotterdam, July 13-15, 2010 http://nexenta-rotterdam.eventbrite.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS root recovery SMI/EFI label weirdness
Sean, If you review the doc section you included previously, you will see that all the root pool examples include slice 0. The slice is a long-standing boot requirement and is described in the boot chapter, in this section: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/ggrko?l=ena=view ZFS Storage Pool Configuration Requirements The pool must exist either on a disk slice or on disk slices that are mirrored. Thanks, Cindy On 06/25/10 05:44, Sean . wrote: I've discovered the source of the problem. zpool create -f -o failmode=continue -R /a -m legacy -o cachefile=/etc/zfs/zpool.cache rpool c1t0d0 It seems a root pool must only be created on a slice. Therefore zpool create -f -o failmode=continue -R /a -m legacy -o cachefile=/etc/zfs/zpool.cache rpool c1t0d0s0 will work. I've been reading through some of the ZFS root installation stuff and can't find a note that explicitly states this although a bit of bing'ing and I found a thread that confirmed this. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers
From: Arne Jansen Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:21 AM Now the test for the Vertex 2 Pro. This was fun. For more explanation please see the thread Crucial RealSSD C300 and cache flush? This time I made sure the device is attached via 3GBit SATA. This is also only a short test. I'll retest after some weeks of usage. cache enabled, 32 buffers, 64k blocks linear write, random data: 96 MB/s linear read, random data: 206 MB/s linear write, zero data: 234 MB/s linear read, zero data: 255 MB/s random write, random data: 84 MB/s random read, random data: 180 MB/s random write, zero data: 224 MB/s randow read, zero data: 190 MB/s cache enabled, 32 buffers, 4k blocks linear write, random data: 93 MB/s linear read, random data: 138 MB/s linear write, zero data: 113 MB/s linear read, zero data: 141 MB/s random write, random data: 41 MB/s (10300 ops/s) random read, random data: 76 MB/s (19000 ops/s) random write, zero data: 54 MB/s (13800 ops/s) random read, zero data: 91 MB/s (22800 ops/s) cache enabled, 1 buffer, 4k blocks linear write, random data: 62 MB/s (15700 ops/s) linear read, random data: 32 MB/s (8000 ops/s) linear write, zero data: 64 MB/s (16100 ops/s) linear read, zero data: 45 MB/s (11300 ops/s) random write, random data: 14 MB/s (3400 ops/s) random read, random data: 22 MB/s (5600 ops/s) random write, zero data: 19 MB/s (4500 ops/s) random read, zero data: 21 MB/s (5100 ops/s) cache enabled, 1 buffer, 4k blocks, with cache flushes: linear write, random data, flush after every write: 5700 ops/s linear write, zero data, flush after every write: 5700 ops/s linear write, random data, flush after every 4th write: 8500 ops/s linear write, zero data, flush after every 4th write: 8500 ops/s Some remarks: The random op numbers have to be read with care: - reading occurs in the same order as the writing before - the ops are not aligned to any specific boundary The device also passed the write-loss-test: after 5 repeats no data has been lost. It doesn't make any difference if the cache is enabled or disabled, so it might be worth to tune zfs to not issue cache flushes. Conclusion: This device will make an excellent slog device. I'll order them today ;) --Arne Arne, thanks for doing these tests, they are great to see. Is this the one (http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid-state-drives/2-5--sata-ii/maxim um-performance-enterprise-solid-state-drives/ocz-vertex-2-pro-series-sata-ii -2-5--ssd-.html) with the built in supercap? Geoff ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Recomendations for Storage Pool Config
Good morning all. This question has probably poped up before, but maybe not in this exact way… I am planning on building a SAN for my home meta centre, and have some of the raid cards I need for the build. I will be ordering the case soon, and then the drives. The cards I have are 2 8 port PXI-Express cards (A dell Perc 5 and a Adaptec card…). The case will have 20 hot swap SAS/SATA drives, and I will be adding a third RAID controller to allow the full 20 drives. I have read something about trying to setup redundancy with the RAID controllers, so having zpools spanning multiple controllers. Given I won’t be using the on-board RAID features of the cards, I am wondering how this should be setup… I was thinking of zpools: 2+2+1 X 4 in ZRAID2. This way, I could lose a controller and not lose any data from the pools… But is this theory correct? If I were to use 2Tb drives, each zpool would be 10Tb RAW and 6TB useable… giving me a total of 40Tb RAW and 24Tb usable… Is this over kill? Should I be worrying about losing a controller? Thanks in advance. --Tiernan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recomendations for Storage Pool Config
Tiernan, Hardware redundancy is important, but I would be thinking about how you are going to back up data in the 6-24 TB range, if you actually need that much space. Balance your space requirements with good redundancy and how much data you can safely back up because stuff happens: hardware fails, power fails, and you can lose data. More suggestions: 1. Test some configs for your specific data/environment. 2. Start with smaller mirrored pools, which offer redundancy, good performance, and more flexibility. With a SAN, I would assume you are using multiple systems. Did you mean meta centre or media centre? 3. Consider a mirrored source pool and then create snapshots that you send to a mirrored backup pool on another system. Mirrored pools can be easily expanded when you need more space. 4. If you are running a recent OpenSolaris build, you could use the zpool split command to attach and detach disks from your source pool to replicate it on another system, in addition to doing more regular snapshots of source data. Thanks, Cindy On 06/25/10 13:26, Tiernan OToole wrote: Good morning all. This question has probably poped up before, but maybe not in this exact way… I am planning on building a SAN for my home meta centre, and have some of the raid cards I need for the build. I will be ordering the case soon, and then the drives. The cards I have are 2 8 port PXI-Express cards (A dell Perc 5 and a Adaptec card…). The case will have 20 hot swap SAS/SATA drives, and I will be adding a third RAID controller to allow the full 20 drives. I have read something about trying to setup redundancy with the RAID controllers, so having zpools spanning multiple controllers. Given I won’t be using the on-board RAID features of the cards, I am wondering how this should be setup… I was thinking of zpools: 2+2+1 X 4 in ZRAID2. This way, I could lose a controller and not lose any data from the pools… But is this theory correct? If I were to use 2Tb drives, each zpool would be 10Tb RAW and 6TB useable… giving me a total of 40Tb RAW and 24Tb usable… Is this over kill? Should I be worrying about losing a controller? Thanks in advance. --Tiernan ___ 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] Apparent resilver slow down
I've noticed (at least on Solaris 10) that the resiver rate appears to slow down considerably as it nears completion. On an eight 500G raidz2 vdev, after 28 hours zpool status reported: spare DEGRADED 0 063 c1t6d0 DEGRADED 0 011 too many errors c5t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 513G resilvered Now after 55 hours: spare DEGRADED 0 063 c1t6d0 DEGRADED 0 011 too many errors c5t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 547G resilvered Which looks like 500GB in the first 28 hours and 34GB in the next. Is this an artefact of the reporting, or something else? 547G resilvered on a 500GB drive is a little suspicious! -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS on Ubuntu
How much of a difference is there in supporting applications in between Ubuntu and OpenSolaris? I was not considering Ubuntu until OpenSOlaris would not load onto my machine... Any info would be great. I have not been able to find any sort of comparison of ZFS on Ubuntu and OS. Thanks. (My current OS install troubleshoot thread - http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=488193#488193) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Ubuntu
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Ben Miles merloc...@hotmail.com wrote: How much of a difference is there in supporting applications in between Ubuntu and OpenSolaris? I was not considering Ubuntu until OpenSOlaris would not load onto my machine... Any info would be great. I have not been able to find any sort of comparison of ZFS on Ubuntu and OS. Thanks. (My current OS install troubleshoot thread - http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=488193#488193) If you want ZFS, then go with FreeBSD instead of Ubuntu. FreeBSD 8.1 includes ZFSv14 with patches available for ZFSv15 and ZFSv16. You'll get a more stable, better performant system than trying to shoehorn ZFS-FUSE into Ubuntu (we've tried with Debian, and ZFS-FUSE is good for short-term testing, but not production use). -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Ubuntu
On 6/25/2010 6:49 PM, Freddie Cash wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Ben Milesmerloc...@hotmail.com wrote: How much of a difference is there in supporting applications in between Ubuntu and OpenSolaris? I was not considering Ubuntu until OpenSOlaris would not load onto my machine... Any info would be great. I have not been able to find any sort of comparison of ZFS on Ubuntu and OS. Thanks. (My current OS install troubleshoot thread - http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=488193#488193) If you want ZFS, then go with FreeBSD instead of Ubuntu. FreeBSD 8.1 includes ZFSv14 with patches available for ZFSv15 and ZFSv16. You'll get a more stable, better performant system than trying to shoehorn ZFS-FUSE into Ubuntu (we've tried with Debian, and ZFS-FUSE is good for short-term testing, but not production use). See a previous thread on this list (i.e. look in the archives for May/June) for a still-in-progress port of kernel-level ZFS to Linux. It's not ready yet, but they promise Real Soon Now! That said, if you need ZFS right now, it's either FreeBSD or OpenSolaris (or Solaris 10). Two other considerations from your original message: (1) What do you mean by supporting applications? Do you mean are the same applications available on Linux and OpenSolaris? Or do you mean that you are writing an application (or have application source) that was targeted for OpenSolaris/Solaris, and would like to now port it to Linux? (2) Ubuntu is a desktop distribution. Don't be fooled by their server version. It's not - it has too many idiosyncrasies and bad design choices to be a stable server OS. Use something like Debian, SLES, or RHEL/CentOS. (also - have you tried installing the original 2009.06 stable OpenSolaris version? It might not have the install issues you're running into with the Dev branch, and give you something to do while you wait for the next 2010.X stable version of OpenSolaris...) -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Ubuntu
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote: (2) Ubuntu is a desktop distribution. Don't be fooled by their server version. It's not - it has too many idiosyncrasies and bad design choices to be a stable server OS. Use something like Debian, SLES, or RHEL/CentOS. Why would you say that? What idiosyncrasies and bad design choices are you talking about? Just curious. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Trouble detecting Seagate LP 2TB drives
I recently installed a Seagate LP drive in an Atom ICH7 based system. The drive is showing up dmesg but not available in format. Is this a known problem? Is there a work around for it? -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Detaching a clone from a snapshot
Hello, Is it possible to detach a clone from its snapshot (and copy all its data physically)? I ran into an obscure situation where 'zfs promote' does not help. Snapshot S has clones C1 and C2, both of which are boot environments. S has a data error that cannot be corrected. The error affects *one* crash dump file, so it's obviously benign. (The system crashed when a crash dump was being transferred from the dump device to /var/crash and this happened more than once. This is a nightly + onu system, so accidents might happen.) If I understand it well, the original dependency graph looks like this C1 - S - C2, and I can only achieve one the following with 'zfs promote': C1 - S - C2 C1 - S - C2 I can't get rid of S (and of the error message in zpool status) without removing either C1 or C2. Is there a solution other than removing C1 or C2? Andrej smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trouble detecting Seagate LP 2TB drives
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote: I recently installed a Seagate LP drive in an Atom ICH7 based system. The drive is showing up dmesg but not available in format. Is this a known problem? Is there a work around for it? I just found an older thread where this was discussed. Apparently 32-bit kernels can't support drives over 1GB. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
