2012-05-16 6:18, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
You forgot IDEA #6 where you take advantage of the fact that zfs can be told to use sparse files as partitions. This is rather like your IDEA #3 but does not require that disks be partitioned.
This is somewhat the method of making "missing devices" when creating a ZFS pool (i.e. 8+1(+2missing) as in my earlier mail).
This opens up many possibilities. Whole vdevs can be virtualized to files on (i.e. moved onto) remaining physical vdevs.
This is a nifty idea in general, but this pool's practice keeps it quite full - about 100Gb free by df/zfs list account, however with zfs reserved space the figure jumps to 740Gb free in zpool list reports (hopefully that's what leaves the system performing quite well despite the full fragmented pool). > Then the drives
freed up can be replaced with larger drives and used to start a new pool. It might be easier to upgrade the existing drives in the pool first so that there is assured to be vast amounts of free space and the drives get some testing. There is not initially additional risk due to raidz1 in the pool since the drives will be about as full as before.
Your idea actually evolved for me into another (#7?), which is simple and apparent enough to be ingenious ;) DO use the partitions, but split the "2.73Tb" drives into a roughly "2.5Tb" partition followed by a "250Gb" partition of the same size as vdevs of the original old pool. Then the new drives can replace a dozen of original small disks one by one, in a one-to-one fashion resilvering, with no worsening of the situation in regard of downtime or original/new pools' integrity tradeoffs (in fact, several untrustworthy old disks will be replaced by newer ones). When the new dozen of disks is in place, the complete 8+3 new pool can be created with no compromises, and old data migrated onto it, and then the old pool can be destroyed after everything has been checked to be properly accessible. The remaining 250Gb disks can be repurposed, while the tailing partitions on new disks can join the big pool by autoexpansion (i.e. remove second partitions, expand first partitions in the label table, autoexpand pool - did that a few times on other occasions). In fact, this scenario seems like the best of all worlds to me now, unless someone talks me out of this with some pretty good reasoning. So thanks for keeping the dialog and thought-flow going :)
I am not sure what additional risks are involved due to using files.
Well, ZFS docs and blogs pose files as a testing technique more than one inclined for production, due to possible issued between ZFS and disks brought in by the filesystem underneath. I believe the same reasoning should apply to other similar methods though, like iSCSI from remote storage, or lofi-devices, or SVM as I thought of (ab)using in this migration. Thanks, //Jim _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss