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