On Jan 28, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Michelle Knight wrote: > Hi Folks, > > As usual, trust me to come up with the unusual. I'm planning ahead for > future expansion and running tests. > > Unfortunately until 2010-2 comes out I'm stuck with 111b (no way to upgrade > to anything than 130, which gives me problems) > > Anyway, here is the situation. > > Initial installation drive is a 40gig drive given over to Open Solaris. > Second drive is an 80 gig drive. > > The aim is to mirror the operating system in a way that I can remove the > 40gig drive form the system and have the 80 gig drive boot. > > At this point, you're probably thinking that you've heard it all before. > > I believe that the drive size difference is causing a problem. > > I kill the EFI partition and set up a Solaris partition. Yes, I even reboot > the box to ensure that the Solaris partition has stuck. > > I run the usual ... prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c4t0d0s2 | fmthard -s – > /dev/rdsk/c4t1d0s2 ... command and it is here that I think something is going > wrong ...
Don't do that. You are basically copying the label for a 40 GB drive onto an 80 GB drive, which magically transforms the 80 GB drive into (presto change-o!) a 40 GB drive. Use format(1m) and setup the SMI label and partitions as you need. [I consider prtvtoc | fmthard to be a virus :-(] On Jan 28, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Michelle Knight wrote: > A bit more information... this is what I've used the all free hog to > generate.... > Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks > 0 unassigned wm 3 - 9725 74.48GB (9723/0/0) 156199995 > 1 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 2 backup wu 0 - 9725 74.50GB (9726/0/0) 156248190 > 3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 6 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0 > 8 boot wu 0 - 0 7.84MB (1/0/0) 16065 > 9 alternates wm 1 - 2 15.69MB (2/0/0) 32130 > > ...and when I attempt to add c19d0s0 to the pool, I get... > > m...@cougar:~# zpool attach rpool c7d0s0 c19d0s0 > invalid vdev specification > use '-f' to override the following errors: > /dev/dsk/c19d0s0 overlaps with /dev/dsk/c19d0s2 > > Is it OK for me to use the -f or have I got something critically wrong here? This is annoying protectionism. If the disk does not currently contain data you care about, go ahead and use -f. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
