[zfs-discuss] moving rppol in laptop to spare SSD drive.
Hello folks, I ordered a bunch of 128Gb SSD's the other day, placed 2 in PC, another in a windoz laptop and I thought I'd place one in my opensolaris laptop, should be straightforward or so I thought. The problem I seem to be running into is that the partition the rpool is on is 130Gb, SSD once sliced up is only about 120Gb. I pulled the main disk from the latop and put it in a caddy, put the new ssd in the drive bay and booted from cdrom. I imported the rpool and created an altpool on the ssd drive. zfs pool list shows both pools. altpool size 119G avail 119G rpool size 130G used 70G I created a snapshot of the rpool and tried to send it to the other disk but it fails with file too large. zfs send -R rp...@backup altpool warning: cannot send 'rpool/bu...@backup': file too large. is there anyway to get the data over onto the other drive at all? Thanks Steve. -- 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] resilver that never finishes
Hi, The drives and the chassis are fine, what I am questioning is how can it be resilvering more data to a device than the capacity of the device? If data on pool has changed during resilver, resilver counter will not update accordingly, and it will show resilvering 100% for needed time to catch up. Yours Markus Kovero ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] resilver that never finishes
On 19 September, 2010 - Markus Kovero sent me these 0,5K bytes:
Hi,
The drives and the chassis are fine, what I am questioning is how can it
be resilvering more data to a device than the capacity of the device?
If data on pool has changed during resilver, resilver counter will not
update accordingly, and it will show resilvering 100% for needed time
to catch up.
I believe this was fixed recently, by displaying how many blocks it has
checked vs how many to check...
/Tomas
--
Tomas Ögren, st...@acc.umu.se, http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] resilver that never finishes
On 18/09/10 15:25, George Wilson wrote: Tom Bird wrote: In my case, other than an hourly snapshot, the data is not significantly changing. It'd be nice to see a response other than you're doing it wrong, rebuilding 5x the data on a drive relative to its capacity is clearly erratic behaviour, I am curious as to what is actually happening. It sounds like you're hitting '6891824 7410 NAS head continually resilvering following HDD replacement'. If you stop taking and destroying snapshots you should see the resilver finish. George, I think you've won the prize. I suspended the snapshots last night and this morning one pool had completed, one left to go. Thanks, Tom ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] moving rppol in laptop to spare SSD drive.
Hi Steve, Couple of options. Create a new boot environment on the SSD, and this will copy the data over. Or zfs send -R rp...@backup | zfs recv altpool I'd use the alt boot environment, rather than the send and receive. Cheers, -Mark. On 19/09/2010, at 5:37 PM, Steve Arkley wrote: Hello folks, I ordered a bunch of 128Gb SSD's the other day, placed 2 in PC, another in a windoz laptop and I thought I'd place one in my opensolaris laptop, should be straightforward or so I thought. The problem I seem to be running into is that the partition the rpool is on is 130Gb, SSD once sliced up is only about 120Gb. I pulled the main disk from the latop and put it in a caddy, put the new ssd in the drive bay and booted from cdrom. I imported the rpool and created an altpool on the ssd drive. zfs pool list shows both pools. altpool size 119G avail 119G rpool size 130G used 70G I created a snapshot of the rpool and tried to send it to the other disk but it fails with file too large. zfs send -R rp...@backup altpool warning: cannot send 'rpool/bu...@backup': file too large. is there anyway to get the data over onto the other drive at all? Thanks Steve. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss inline: oracle_sig_logo.gif Mark Farmer | Sales Consultant Phone: +61730317106 | Mobile: +61414999143 Oracle Systems ORACLE Australia | 300 Ann St | Brisbane inline: green-for-email-sig_0.gif Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Howto reclaim space under legacy mountpoint?
I moved my home directories to a new disk and then mounted the disk using a legacy mount point over /export/home. Here is the output of the zfs list: NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 55.8G 11.1G83K /rpool rpool/ROOT 21.1G 11.1G19K legacy rpool/ROOT/snv-134 21.1G 11.1G 14.3G / rpool/dump 1.97G 11.1G 1.97G - rpool/export30.8G 11.1G23K /export rpool/export/home 30.8G 11.1G 29.3G legacy rpool/swap 1.97G 12.9G 144M - users 32.8G 881G 31.1G /export/home The question is how to remove the files from the orginal rpool/export/home (non mount point) rpool? I a bit nervous to do a: zfs destroy rpool/export/home Is the the correct and safe methodology? Thanks, Gary -- 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] Zpool import Problem ZFS-8000-EY
OK, the Pool is died and i had create a new one :-) regards ré -- 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] moving rppol in laptop to spare SSD drive.
Doh, Why didn't I think of that cheers Mark, some time the most obvious options get completely passed by, alt boot environment it is. Thanks Steve. -- 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] Howto reclaim space under legacy mountpoint?
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Gary Gendel g...@genashor.com wrote: I moved my home directories to a new disk and then mounted the disk using a legacy mount point over /export/home. Here is the output of the zfs list: NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 55.8G 11.1G 83K /rpool rpool/ROOT 21.1G 11.1G 19K legacy rpool/ROOT/snv-134 21.1G 11.1G 14.3G / rpool/dump 1.97G 11.1G 1.97G - rpool/export 30.8G 11.1G 23K /export rpool/export/home 30.8G 11.1G 29.3G legacy rpool/swap 1.97G 12.9G 144M - users 32.8G 881G 31.1G /export/home The question is how to remove the files from the orginal rpool/export/home (non mount point) rpool? I a bit nervous to do a: set mountpoint to somewhere and decide for yourself. -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Please warn a home user against OpenSolaris under VirtualBox under WinXP ; )
Pardon in advance my n00b ignorance. (Yes I have googled a [i]lot[/i] before asking.) I am considering VirtualBoxing away one physical machine at home, and running WinXP as host (yes, as atrocious it may seem, explanation below [1]) and OpenSolaris guest as file server, with OpenSolaris (why?[2]) having raw access to all my SATA drives. (OSes on the IDE channel). This is for home use, as a media center -- files basically written 4 TB once and for all and later only rare addtions or overwrites. If this is a bad idea, I'd like to be warned before I spend another two weeks trying to learn, reinstall (initial bare-metal testing OK), swear curse, populate and swear curse. * Raw access. - ZFS is best off accessing physical devices, right? That means raw access, or is that even insufficient? - I am a bit scared at Windows having access to the critical hard drives ;) And raw access is considered for experts, which I ain't. And there are concerns like flush drive ( comments in http://blogs.sun.com/mock/entry/stupid_virtualbox_zfs_tricks ) -- solvable yes, but I am not confident I know all the warnings. - FTR, I will anyway have a few-months-old backup at work, so I am not too worried at a sudden data loss due to my own screwing up. * Memory. - As said, hardly any write operations, so OpenSolaris seems to run perfectly well on this (bare metal) with even less than 1GB under no load, but I haven't even tried to populate with data -- how much to even idle on a 5TB RAID-Z? - This mobo clocks down RAM if using more than 2 slots. [1] Why XP as _host_? - Will sometimes run XP on bare metal for performance -- I can then simply pause the VM. - Running my pre-installed XP under VirtualBox looks like a nightmare, judging from some googling - Stability? If XP crashes, I don't need to access my media files until XP is up and running again. Would of course be quicker to restart in VM, but hey, server uptime is really not an issue. (- Better network card support.) - I might have an OpenSolaris installation running on bare metal for those occational heavier tasks, and stick to my laptop for those couple of days. [2] Why OpenSolaris at all? - Would like ZFS for RAID management (5 disk RAID-Z) and snapshotting (basically [i]every[/i] time a file is overwritten!). -- 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] Please warn a home user against OpenSolaris under VirtualBox under WinXP ; )
I have another question to add to the two you already asked and answered. Why not two separate machines, one for XP, one for zfs/raid? At today's network speeds, hooking a cable between those two would provide any speed data access to the files in the raid that you want. A suitable ZFS machine could sit in another room if you want the quiet for home theater. The idea of having one set of hardware run everything is clever, and virtualizing everything is neat, efficient - and complicated. Now that Oracle has gutted Open Solaris, I'm forced to once again articulate why I got into Open Solaris about a year ago - I wanted ZFS, and was willing to go learn Open Solaris to get it. ZFS was a powerful motivator. But I can get what I need there with just a ZFS back end machine; and last-generation hardware is very, very cheap. For me, the UN complication of using two hardware setups is well worth it. -- 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 checksum errors (ZFS-8000-8A)
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn It is very unusual to obtain the same number of errors (probably same errors) from two devices in a pair. This should indicate a common symptom such as a memory error (does your system have ECC?), controller glitch, or a shared power supply issue. Bob's right. I didn't notice that both sides of the mirror have precisely 56 checksum errors. Ignore what I said about adding a 3rd disk to the mirror. It won't help. The 3rd mirror would have only been useful if the block corruption on these 2 disks weren't the same blocks. I think you have to acknowledge the fact that you have corrupt data. And you should run some memory diagnostics on your system to see if you can detect some failing memory. The cause is not necessarily memory, as Bob pointed out, but a typical way to produce the result you're seeing is ... ZFS calculates a checksum of a block it's about to write to disk, and of course that checksum is stored in ram. Unfortunately, if it's stored in corrupt ram, then ... when it's written to disk, of course the checksum will mismatch. And the faulty checksum gets written to both sides of the mirror. It is discovered later during your scrub. There is no un-corrupt copy of the data that ZFS thought it wrote. At least it's detected by ZFS. Without checksumming, that error would pass undetected. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] space_map again nuked!!
On Sep 18, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Stephan Ferraro wrote: I'm really angry against ZFS: Emotions rarely help to get to the root cause... My server no more reboots because the ZFS spacemap is again corrupt. I just replaced the whole spacemap by recreating a new zpool from scratch and copying back the data with zfs send zfs receive. Did it copied corrupt spacemap?! Definitely no. It suggests that you may have and issue with hardware, for example with memory, or CPU and/or cache, or some other components. regards Victor ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to fsck the spacemap?
On Sep 19, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Stephan Ferraro wrote: Am 19.09.2010 um 18:59 schrieb Victor Latushkin: On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Stephan Ferraro wrote: Is there a way to fsck the spacemap? Does scrub helps for this? No, because issues that you see are internal inconsistencies with unclear nature. Though as actual issue varies from one inctance to another this is likely some random corruption. The error repeated in endless loop because the server rebooted in endless loop and each time when it booted up ZFS it showed this ASSERTION error of the corrupt spacemap every time in the same memory location. Once it is there you'll trip various assertions each time affected space map is loaded. By random corruption I mean that it is different each time you encounter it another time after fixing it. victor ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS checksum errors (ZFS-8000-8A)
I have registered ECC memory in the system. I will run some memory diagnostics also, but mentioning the power supply got me thinking that around the same time of the errors we had a storm and the lights dimmed in my house quite a few times. It was not enough of a drop to shut the system down but perhaps it had something to do with it. Hopefully it is as simple as that. A UPS is now on my list. I took Bob's advice, added more disks and created another pool since I do not trust the old pool. I used dd with noerror and sync to a new block volume and that did the trick, thanks Bob and thanks Edward for the explanation. I was a bit unsure using dd on the zvol directly so I added another LUN (on the new pool) to the system's view and used clonezilla; booted it to the command prompt and use dd from there to duplicate the dev. Any thoughts on directly accessing the zvol via dd? I assume it the same as any other device and should not be a problem. Another thing I noticed is the high % of wait I/O on the disks of the problematic pool. I am not sure if it was ever this high before. My new pool is on a different controller and it is a different raid type so I cannot compare. This time I selected raidz2 Thanks for the replies really appreciate it. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
