On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 7:04:39 AM UTC-4, jasonbelec wrote: > > ZFS is lots of parts, in most cases lots of cheap unreliable parts, > refurbished parts, yadda yadda, as posted on this thread and many, many > others, any issues are probably not ZFS but the parts of the whole. Yes, it > could be ZFS, after you confirm that all the parts ate pristine, maybe. >
I don't think it's ZFS. ZFS is pretty solid. In my specific case, I'm trying to figure out why VirtualBox is creating these issues. I'm pretty sure that's the root cause, but I don't know why yet. So I'm just speculating at this point. Of course, I want to get my ZFS up and running so I can move on to what I really need to do, so it's easy to jump on a conclusion about something that I haven't thought of in my position. Hope you can understand > > My oldest system running ZFS is an Mac Mini Intel Core Duo with 3GB RAM > (not ECC) it is the home server for music, tv shows, movies, and some > interim backups. The mini has been modded for ESATA and has 6 drives > connected. The pool is 2 RaidZ of 3 mirrored with copies set at 2. Been > running since ZFS was released from Apple builds. Lost 3 drives, eventually > traced to a new cable that cracked at the connector which when hot enough > expanded lifting 2 pins free of their connector counter parts resulting in > errors. Visually almost impossible to see. I replaced port multipliers, > Esata cards, RAM, mini's, power supply, reinstalled OS, reinstalled ZFS, > restored ZFS data from backup, finally to find the bad connector end one > because it was hot and felt 'funny'. > > Frustrating, yes, educational also. The happy news is, all the data was > fine, wife would have torn me to shreds if photos were missing, music was > corrupt, etc., etc.. And this was on the old out of date but stable ZFS > version we Mac users have been hugging onto for dear life. YMMV > > Never had RAM as the issue, here in the mad science lab across 10 rotating > systems or in any client location - pick your decade. However I don't use > cheap RAM either, and I only have 2 Systems requiring ECC currently that > don't even connect to ZFS as they are both XServers with other lives. > > > -- > Jason Belec > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 1, 2014, at 12:13 AM, Daniel Becker <razz...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Mar 31, 2014, at 7:41 PM, Eric Jaw <nais...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > I started using ZFS about a few weeks ago, so a lot of it is still new to > me. I'm actually not completely certain about "proper procedure" for > repairing a pool. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to clear the errors after > the scrub, before or after (little things). I'm not sure if it even > matters. When I restarted the VM, the checksum counts cleared on its own. > > > The counts are not maintained across reboots. > > > On the first scrub it repaired roughly 1.65MB. None on the second scub. > Even after the scrub there were still 43 data errors. I was expecting they > were going to go away. > > > errors: 43 data errors, use '-v' for a list > > > What this means is that in these 43 cases, the system was not able to > correct the error (i.e., both drives in a mirror returned bad data). > > > This is an excellent question. They're in 'Normal' mode. I remember > looking in to this before and decided normal mode should be fine. I might > be wrong. So thanks for bringing this up. I'll have to check it out again. > > > The reason I was asking is that these symptoms would also be consistent > with something outside the VM writing to the disks behind the VM’s back; > that’s unlikely to happen accidentally with disk images, but raw disks are > visible to the host OS as such, so it may be as simple as Windows deciding > that it should initialize the “unformatted” (really, formatted with an > unknown filesystem) devices. Or it could be a raid controller that stores > its array metadata in the last sector of the array’s disks. > > > memtest86 and memtest86+ for 18 hours came out okay. I'm on my third scrub > and the number or errors has remained at 43. Checksum errors continue to > pile up as the pool is getting scrubbed. > > I'm just as flustered about this. Thanks again for the input. > > > Given that you’re seeing a fairly large number of errors in your scrubs, > the fact that memtest86 doesn’t find anything at all very strongly suggests > that this is not actually a memory issue. > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.