On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 19:18 -0800, Erblichs wrote:
> Bill Sommerfield,
Again, that's not how my name is spelled.
> With some normal sporadic read failure, accessing
> the whole spool may force repeated reads for
> the replace.
please look again at the iostat I posted:
capacity operations bandwidth
pool used avail read write read write
------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
z 306G 714G 1.43K 658 23.5M 1.11M
raidz1 109G 231G 1.08K 392 22.3M 497K
replacing - - 0 1012 0 5.72M
c1t4d0 - - 0 753 0 5.73M
c1t5d0 - - 0 790 0 5.72M
c2t12d0 - - 339 177 9.46M 149K
c2t13d0 - - 317 177 9.08M 149K
c3t12d0 - - 330 181 9.27M 147K
c3t13d0 - - 352 180 9.45M 146K
raidz1 100G 240G 117 101 373K 225K
c1t3d0 - - 65 33 3.99M 64.1K
c2t10d0 - - 60 44 3.77M 63.2K
c2t11d0 - - 62 42 3.87M 63.4K
c3t10d0 - - 63 42 3.88M 62.3K
c3t11d0 - - 65 35 4.06M 61.8K
raidz1 96.2G 244G 234 164 768K 415K
c1t2d0 - - 129 49 7.85M 112K
c2t8d0 - - 133 54 8.05M 112K
c2t9d0 - - 132 56 8.08M 113K
c3t8d0 - - 132 52 8.01M 113K
c3t9d0 - - 132 49 8.16M 112K
there were no (zero, none, nada, zilch) reads directed to the failing
device. there were a lot of WRITES to the failing device; in fact, the
the same volume of data was being written to BOTH the failing device and
the new device.
> So, I was thinking that a read access
> that could ALSO be updating the znode. This newer
> time/date stamp is causing alot of writes.
that's not going to be significant as a source of traffic; again, look
at the above iostat, which was representative of the load throughout the
resilver.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
