[zfs-discuss] Bad pool...
Hi all I have a rather large pool that has been a bit troublesome. We've lost some drives (WD Black), and though that should work out well, I now have a pool that doesn't look too healthy. http://paste.ubuntu.com/611973/ Two drives have been resilvered, but the old drives still stick. The drive that has died still hasn't been taken over by a spare, although the two spares show up as AVAIL. Anyone that know how I can fix this? Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Monitoring disk seeks
Hi, see the seeksize script on this URL: http://prefetch.net/articles/solaris.dtracetopten.html Not used it but looks neat! cheers Andy. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Monitoring disk seeks
On 05/24/2011 03:08 PM, a.sm...@ukgrid.net wrote: Hi, see the seeksize script on this URL: http://prefetch.net/articles/solaris.dtracetopten.html Not used it but looks neat! cheers Andy. I already did and it does the job just fine. Thank you for your kind suggestion. BR, -- Saso ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ndmp?
When I search around, I see that nexenta has ndmp, and solaris 10 does not, and there was at least some talk about supporting ndmp in opensolaris ... So ... Is ndmp present in solaris 11 express? Is it an installable 3rd party package? How would you go about supporting ndmp if you wanted to? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ndmp?
On 05/24/11 14:37, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: When I search around, I see that nexenta has ndmp, and solaris 10 does not, and there was at least some talk about supporting ndmp in opensolaris ... So ... Is ndmp present in solaris 11 express? Is it an installable 3rd party package? How would you go about supporting ndmp if you wanted to? It is present, it is not 3rd party. Click here to install it: http://pkg.oracle.com/solaris/release/p5i/0/service%2Fstorage%2Fndmp.p5i Man pages are here: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19963-01/html/821-1462/ndmpadm-1m.html http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19963-01/html/821-1462/ndmpd-1m.html http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19963-01/html/821-1462/ndmpstat-1m.html What you mean by supporting it ? I believe (though I haven't tested it) it works with Oracle Secure Backup as well as NetBackup and Networker. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ndmp?
On 5/24/2011 9:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: When I search around, I see that nexenta has ndmp, and solaris 10 does not, and there was at least some talk about supporting ndmp in opensolaris ... So ... Is ndmp present in solaris 11 express? Is it an installable 3rd party package? How would you go about supporting ndmp if you wanted to? you can pay/buy support for s11x/solaris from oracle for non-oracle HW http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/solaris/non-sun-x86-081976.html ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss attachment: laotsao.vcf___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
The netapp lawsuit is solved. No conflicts there. Regarding ZFS, it is open under CDDL license. The leaked source code that is already open is open. Nexenta is using the open sourced version of ZFS. Oracle might close future ZFS versions, but Nexenta's ZFS is open and can not be closed. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
I have a more generall question about intellectual rights around ZFS, when taking a look at the storage solution NexentaStor. Perhaps not necessary to mention, but to be complete: NexentaStor has created a Open Source SAN solution that runs on commodity hardware. Compellent for example has a NAS based upon Nexenta. NexentaStor is based upon the ZFS filesystem and sounds (for that reason) very promising. Now i wonder what the threats are to this and if Oracle is one of them, when reading for example in a Gartner report: Gartner cautions about the uncertain nature of future developments of the open-source ZFS code, as Oracle intends to focus on monetizing ZFS. * And on the Register i read: One outcome is that Oracle agrees to license the relevant patents pertaining to ZFS from NetApp. This would then open the way for Coraid and other ZFS-using storage suppliers to have to license them as well, significantly upsetting their business models unless the license fees are set low. ** I would like to know what grip Oracle (or perhaps NetApp) has upon ZFS. Are parts of the code owned by Oracle? Can they put claims on parts of ZFS? Regards, Hans. * http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/hitachi/vol3/article2/article2.html?WT.ac=us_hp_sp1r21_p=v ** http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/06/netapp_coraid/ -- 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] Bad pool...
Two drives have been resilvered, but the old drives still stick. The drive that has died still hasn't been taken over by a spare, although the two spares show up as AVAIL. For the one that hasn't been replaced try doing: zpool replace dbpool c8t24d0 c4t43d0 For the two that have already been replaced you can try: zpool detach dbpool c4t1d0/old zpool detach dbpool c4t6d0/old If that doesn't work then you need the disk ID from the old disks and use that in the detach command instead of the c4t1d0 id. -Don ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Same device node appearing twice in same mirror; one faulted, one not...
Hi Alex, If the hardware and cables were moved around then this is probably the root cause of your problem. You should see if you can move the devices/cabling back to what they were before the move. The zpool history output provides the original device name, which isn't c5t1d0, either: # zpool create tank c13t0d0 You might grep the zpool history output to find out which disk was eventually attached, like this: # zpool history | grep attach But its clear from the zdb -l output, that the devid for this particular device changed, which we've seen happen on some hardware. If the devid persists, ZFS can follow the devid of the device even if its physical path changes and is able to recover more gracefully. If you continue to use this hardware for your storage pool, you should export the pool before making any kind of hardware change. Thanks, Cindy On 05/21/11 18:05, Alex Dolski wrote: Hi Cindy, Thanks for the advice. This is just a little old Gateway PC provisioned as an informal workgroup server. The main storage is two SATA drives in an external enclosure, connected to a Sil3132 PCIe eSATA controller. The OS is snv_134b, upgraded from snv_111a. I can't identify a cause in particular. The box has been running for several months without much oversight. It's possible that the two eSATA cables got reconnected to different ports after a recent move. The backup has been made and I will try the export import, per your advice (if zpool command works - it does again at the moment, no reboot!). I will also try switching the eSATA cables to opposite ports. Thanks, Alex Command output follows: # format Searching for disks...done AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS: 0. c5t1d0 ATA-WDC WD5000AAKS-0-1D05-465.76GB /pci@0,0/pci8086,2845@1c,3/pci1095,3132@0/disk@1,0 1. c8d0 DEFAULT cyl 9726 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63 /pci@0,0/pci-ide@1f,2/ide@0/cmdk@0,0 2. c9d0 DEFAULT cyl 38910 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63 /pci@0,0/pci-ide@1f,2/ide@1/cmdk@0,0 3. c11t0d0 WD-Ext HDD 1021-2002-931.51GB /pci@0,0/pci107b,5058@1a,7/storage@1/disk@0,0 # zpool history tank History for 'tank': 2010-06-18.15:14:16 zpool create tank c13t0d0 2011-05-07.02:00:07 zpool scrub tank 2011-05-14.02:00:08 zpool scrub tank 2011-05-21.02:00:12 zpool scrub tank a million 'zfs snapshot' and 'zfs destroy' events from zfs-auto-snap omitted # zdb -l /dev/dsk/c5t1d0s0 LABEL 0 version: 14 name: 'tank' state: 0 txg: 3374337 pool_guid: 6242690959503408617 hostid: 8697169 hostname: 'wdssandbox' top_guid: 17982590661103377266 guid: 1717308203478351258 vdev_children: 1 vdev_tree: type: 'mirror' id: 0 guid: 17982590661103377266 whole_disk: 0 metaslab_array: 23 metaslab_shift: 32 ashift: 9 asize: 500094468096 is_log: 0 children[0]: type: 'disk' id: 0 guid: 1717308203478351258 path: '/dev/dsk/c5t1d0s0' devid: 'id1,sd@SATA_WDC_WD5000AAKS-0_WD-WCAWF1939879/a' phys_path: '/pci@0,0/pci8086,2845@1c,3/pci1095,3132@0/disk@1,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 27 children[1]: type: 'disk' id: 1 guid: 9267693216478869057 path: '/dev/dsk/c5t1d0s0' devid: 'id1,sd@SATA_WDC_WD5000AAKS-0_WD-WCAWF1769949/a' phys_path: '/pci@0,0/pci8086,2845@1c,3/pci1095,3132@0/disk@1,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 893 LABEL 1 version: 14 name: 'tank' state: 0 txg: 3374337 pool_guid: 6242690959503408617 hostid: 8697169 hostname: 'wdssandbox' top_guid: 17982590661103377266 guid: 1717308203478351258 vdev_children: 1 vdev_tree: type: 'mirror' id: 0 guid: 17982590661103377266 whole_disk: 0 metaslab_array: 23 metaslab_shift: 32 ashift: 9 asize: 500094468096 is_log: 0 children[0]: type: 'disk' id: 0 guid: 1717308203478351258 path: '/dev/dsk/c5t1d0s0' devid: 'id1,sd@SATA_WDC_WD5000AAKS-0_WD-WCAWF1939879/a' phys_path: '/pci@0,0/pci8086,2845@1c,3/pci1095,3132@0/disk@1,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 27 children[1]: type: 'disk' id: 1 guid: 9267693216478869057 path: '/dev/dsk/c5t1d0s0' devid: 'id1,sd@SATA_WDC_WD5000AAKS-0_WD-WCAWF1769949/a' phys_path: '/pci@0,0/pci8086,2845@1c,3/pci1095,3132@0/disk@1,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 893 LABEL 2
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On 5/24/2011 8:28 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote: The netapp lawsuit is solved. No conflicts there. Regarding ZFS, it is open under CDDL license. The leaked source code that is already open is open. Nexenta is using the open sourced version of ZFS. Oracle might close future ZFS versions, but Nexenta's ZFS is open and can not be closed. There is no threat to Nexenta from the ZFS code itself; the license that it was made available under explicitly has Oracle allow use for any patents *Oracle* might have. However, since the terms of the NetApp/Oracle suit aren't available publicly, and I seriously doubt that NetApp gave up its patent claims, it could still be feasible for NetApp to sue Nexenta or whomever for alleged violations of *NetApp's* patents in the ZFS code. That is, ZFS has no copyright infringement issues for 3rd parties. It has no patent issues from Oracle. It *could* have patent issues from NetApp. The possible impact of that is beyond my knowledge. IANAL. Nor do I speak for Oracle in any manner, official or unofficial. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zpool lost, and no pools available?
Hi all I just attended this HTC conference and had a chat with a guy from UiO (university of oslo) about ZFS. He claimed Solaris/OI will die silently if a single pool fails. I have seen similar earlier, then due to a bug in ZFS (two drives lost in a RAIDz2, spares taking over, resilvering and then a third drive lost), and the system is hanging. Not even the rpool seems to be available. Can someone please confirm this or tell me if there is a workaround available? Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
Hi Erik and Kebabber, Thanks for your answers. Do i summarize it right saying: the best conclusion would be then that Nexenta has it's own version of ZFS and has nothing to fear of Oracle other ZFS-developpers but that it's uncertain what NetApp might come up with as the details aren't published? Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS... Perhaps that the advantage of ZFS for others like Compellent (and with that, NexentaStor as well) might be become less in future if Oracle speeds up their implementation of it? Regards, Hans -- 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, Oracle and Nexenta
IMHO, oracle would prefer customer go with ZFS appliance with added WebGUI and all the extra support like Analytics, L2ARc and ZIL with SSD etc On 5/24/2011 2:30 PM, Hans Rattink wrote: Hi Erik and Kebabber, Thanks for your answers. Do i summarize it right saying: the best conclusion would be then that Nexenta has it's own version of ZFS and has nothing to fear of Oracle other ZFS-developpers but that it's uncertain what NetApp might come up with as the details aren't published? Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS... Perhaps that the advantage of ZFS for others like Compellent (and with that, NexentaStor as well) might be become less in future if Oracle speeds up their implementation of it? Regards, Hans attachment: laotsao.vcf___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [OpenIndiana-discuss] zpool lost, and no pools available?
man zpool /failmode -Albert On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk r...@karlsbakk.net wrote: Hi all I just attended this HTC conference and had a chat with a guy from UiO (university of oslo) about ZFS. He claimed Solaris/OI will die silently if a single pool fails. I have seen similar earlier, then due to a bug in ZFS (two drives lost in a RAIDz2, spares taking over, resilvering and then a third drive lost), and the system is hanging. Not even the rpool seems to be available. Can someone please confirm this or tell me if there is a workaround available? Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-disc...@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Bad pool...
Shouldn't ZFS detach these automatically? It has done so earlier... It is not supposed to- at least that I recall. Earlier replaces have gone well. One thing is spares, which I can understand somewhat, but dead drives should definetely be tossed off when replaced Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
IMHO, oracle would prefer customer go with ZFS appliance with added WebGUI and all the extra support like Analytics, L2ARc and ZIL with SSD etc Last week i've seen mirrored ZIL upon ZEUS SSD in a Boston NexentaStor solution. -- 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, Oracle and Nexenta
yes IMHO, oracle and nexenta are target different customer On 5/24/2011 3:30 PM, Hans Rattink wrote: IMHO, oracle would prefer customer go with ZFS appliance with added WebGUI and all the extra support like Analytics, L2ARc and ZIL with SSD etc Last week i've seen mirrored ZIL upon ZEUS SSD in a Boston NexentaStor solution. attachment: laotsao.vcf___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On May 24, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Hans Rattink wrote: Hi Erik and Kebabber, Thanks for your answers. Do i summarize it right saying: the best conclusion would be then that Nexenta has it's own version of ZFS and has nothing to fear of Oracle other ZFS-developpers but that it's uncertain what NetApp might come up with as the details aren't published? Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS... Simply means that if you want ZFS from Oracle, you have to pay money. Perhaps that the advantage of ZFS for others like Compellent (and with that, NexentaStor as well) might be become less in future if Oracle speeds up their implementation of it? There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire. Diversity and innovation is a good thing. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire. Diversity and innovation is a good thing. ... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
Thanks all, this cleared up some grey details for me! -- 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, Oracle and Nexenta
On May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire. Diversity and innovation is a good thing. ... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30. It is safe to say Nexenta is unlikely to ever have a pool version 30. We are moving forward with the new versioning method that supercedes the (limited) numbered system of the past. Of course, Oracle broke this first by not implementing version 21 in Solaris 10 :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon High wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire. Diversity and innovation is a good thing. ... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30. That could be a disaster for everyone if they are incompatible. Now with Oracle development in secret, I guess incompatible branches of ZFS are inevitable. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
Hi Brandon, Thanks for the details. Sounds to me like Nexenta is in the lead! Kind regards, Hans Rattink 2011/5/24 Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com On May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire. Diversity and innovation is a good thing. ... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30. It is safe to say Nexenta is unlikely to ever have a pool version 30. We are moving forward with the new versioning method that supercedes the (limited) numbered system of the past. Of course, Oracle broke this first by not implementing version 21 in Solaris 10 :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
Well With various fock of opensource project E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different There are not guarantee to be compatible Sent from my iPad Hung-Sheng Tsao ( LaoTsao) Ph.D On May 24, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote: On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon High wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire. Diversity and innovation is a good thing. ... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30. That could be a disaster for everyone if they are incompatible. Now with Oracle development in secret, I guess incompatible branches of ZFS are inevitable. -- Ian. ___ 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] Same device node appearing twice in same mirror; one faulted, one not...
Sure enough Cindy, the eSATA cables had been crossed. I exported, powered off, reversed the cables, booted, imported, and the pool is currently resilvering with both c5t0d0 c5t1d0 present in the mirror. :) Thank you!! Alex On May 24, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Alex, If the hardware and cables were moved around then this is probably the root cause of your problem. You should see if you can move the devices/cabling back to what they were before the move. The zpool history output provides the original device name, which isn't c5t1d0, either: # zpool create tank c13t0d0 You might grep the zpool history output to find out which disk was eventually attached, like this: # zpool history | grep attach But its clear from the zdb -l output, that the devid for this particular device changed, which we've seen happen on some hardware. If the devid persists, ZFS can follow the devid of the device even if its physical path changes and is able to recover more gracefully. If you continue to use this hardware for your storage pool, you should export the pool before making any kind of hardware change. Thanks, Cindy On 05/21/11 18:05, Alex Dolski wrote: Hi Cindy, Thanks for the advice. This is just a little old Gateway PC provisioned as an informal workgroup server. The main storage is two SATA drives in an external enclosure, connected to a Sil3132 PCIe eSATA controller. The OS is snv_134b, upgraded from snv_111a. I can't identify a cause in particular. The box has been running for several months without much oversight. It's possible that the two eSATA cables got reconnected to different ports after a recent move. The backup has been made and I will try the export import, per your advice (if zpool command works - it does again at the moment, no reboot!). I will also try switching the eSATA cables to opposite ports. Thanks, Alex Command output follows: # format Searching for disks...done AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS: 0. c5t1d0 ATA-WDC WD5000AAKS-0-1D05-465.76GB /pci@0,0/pci8086,2845@1c,3/pci1095,3132@0/disk@1,0 1. c8d0 DEFAULT cyl 9726 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63 /pci@0,0/pci-ide@1f,2/ide@0/cmdk@0,0 2. c9d0 DEFAULT cyl 38910 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63 /pci@0,0/pci-ide@1f,2/ide@1/cmdk@0,0 3. c11t0d0 WD-Ext HDD 1021-2002-931.51GB /pci@0,0/pci107b,5058@1a,7/storage@1/disk@0,0 # zpool history tank History for 'tank': 2010-06-18.15:14:16 zpool create tank c13t0d0 2011-05-07.02:00:07 zpool scrub tank 2011-05-14.02:00:08 zpool scrub tank 2011-05-21.02:00:12 zpool scrub tank a million 'zfs snapshot' and 'zfs destroy' events from zfs-auto-snap omitted # zdb -l /dev/dsk/c5t1d0s0 LABEL 0 version: 14 name: 'tank' state: 0 txg: 3374337 pool_guid: 6242690959503408617 hostid: 8697169 hostname: 'wdssandbox' top_guid: 17982590661103377266 guid: 1717308203478351258 vdev_children: 1 vdev_tree: type: 'mirror' id: 0 guid: 17982590661103377266 whole_disk: 0 metaslab_array: 23 metaslab_shift: 32 ashift: 9 asize: 500094468096 is_log: 0 children[0]: type: 'disk' id: 0 guid: 1717308203478351258 path: '/dev/dsk/c5t1d0s0' devid: 'id1,sd@SATA_WDC_WD5000AAKS-0_WD-WCAWF1939879/a' phys_path: '/pci@0,0/pci8086,2845@1c,3/pci1095,3132@0/disk@1,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 27 children[1]: type: 'disk' id: 1 guid: 9267693216478869057 path: '/dev/dsk/c5t1d0s0' devid: 'id1,sd@SATA_WDC_WD5000AAKS-0_WD-WCAWF1769949/a' phys_path: '/pci@0,0/pci8086,2845@1c,3/pci1095,3132@0/disk@1,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 893 LABEL 1 version: 14 name: 'tank' state: 0 txg: 3374337 pool_guid: 6242690959503408617 hostid: 8697169 hostname: 'wdssandbox' top_guid: 17982590661103377266 guid: 1717308203478351258 vdev_children: 1 vdev_tree: type: 'mirror' id: 0 guid: 17982590661103377266 whole_disk: 0 metaslab_array: 23 metaslab_shift: 32 ashift: 9 asize: 500094468096 is_log: 0 children[0]: type: 'disk' id: 0 guid: 1717308203478351258 path: '/dev/dsk/c5t1d0s0' devid: 'id1,sd@SATA_WDC_WD5000AAKS-0_WD-WCAWF1939879/a' phys_path: '/pci@0,0/pci8086,2845@1c,3/pci1095,3132@0/disk@1,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 27 children[1]: type: 'disk' id: 1 guid: 9267693216478869057
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote: ... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30. This would be unfortunate but no worse than the current situation with UFS - Solaris, *BSD and HP Tru64 all have native UFS filesystems, all of which are incompatible. I believe the various OSS projects that use ZFS have formed a working group to co-ordinate ZFS amongst themselves. I don't know if Oracle was invited to join (though given the way Oracle has behaved in all the other OSS working groups it was a member of, having Oracle onboard might be a disadvantage). -- Peter Jeremy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote: I believe the various OSS projects that use ZFS have formed a working group to co-ordinate ZFS amongst themselves. I don't know if Oracle was invited to join (though given the way Oracle has behaved in all Richard would probably know for certain. There will probably be a fork at some point to an OSS ZFS and an Oracle ZFS. Hopefully neither side will actively try to break compatibility. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On May 24, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Brandon High wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote: I believe the various OSS projects that use ZFS have formed a working group to co-ordinate ZFS amongst themselves. I don't know if Oracle was invited to join (though given the way Oracle has behaved in all Richard would probably know for certain. Yes, Oracle has representation on the ZFS working group. There will probably be a fork at some point to an OSS ZFS and an Oracle ZFS. That break occurred in August 2010. Hopefully neither side will actively try to break compatibility. Yes! A solution to the versioning issue appears to have reached consensus. I observe that the current Solaris 10/11 versioning incompatibility issue doesn't seem to be causing rioting in the streets :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Bad pool...
The system became non-responsible after two drives was lost, and replaced with spares, in that VDEV. That bug has been filed and acknowleged. Take a RAIDz2 with two spares and remove a drive from the pool, let it resilver to a spare, remove another, wait until it resilvers again, and remove the third. The system will become rather dead - even the rpool will be unavailable, even if both the data pool and the rpool are bothe theoretically healthy Can't say I've ever run into that situation. I'd suggest looking into the pool failmode setting but that still wouldn't make a lot of sense. Any idea why you are getting so many failures? CC:ing this to the appropriate lists As a first, the default is to let go of failed devices. I haven't tweaked that part, nor any part of the pool. If a drive failes, it should be replaced by a spare, and when a drive is replaced by a new one, the old ghost should disappear. Neither of this happens at times. It seems sometimes the zpool forgets a dead drive and let ihang. This may trigger the bug which turns a pool and indeed the system unusable (if two drives in a raidz2 are lost, but resilvererd, losing the third will hang the system). The remedy seemed to be to zpool detach the drives. Still, the bug(s) exist(s) to allow a system to be rendered unusable just with a few drives lost, long before the pool is lost. Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [OpenIndiana-discuss] zpool lost, and no pools available?
I just attended this HTC conference and had a chat with a guy from UiO (university of oslo) about ZFS. He claimed Solaris/OI will die silently if a single pool fails. I have seen similar earlier, then due to a bug in ZFS (two drives lost in a RAIDz2, spares taking over, resilvering and then a third drive lost), and the system is hanging. Not even the rpool seems to be available. Can someone please confirm this or tell me if there is a workaround available? man zpool /failmode You may want to RTFM yourself befor replying. The docs say standard procedure is to put the pool into wait, which is ok, but the problem is that not only the pool in question is put into wait, but all pools. Please refrain from RTFMing people before digging into the material Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
