Pete French wrote on 2019/05/03 14:28:
On 03/05/2019 13:11, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
I had this problem in the past too. I am not sure if it was on Dell or
HP machine - controller presents first disk only in the boot time so I
created small (10 - 15GB partition) on each disk and use them all
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
Sent from my iPad
On 09 May 2019, at 01:55, Walter Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>> ZDB (unless I'm misreading it) is able to find all 34m+ files and
>> verifies the checksums. The problem is in the zfs data structures (one
>> definitely, two maybe, metaslabs
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
Sent from my iPad
> On 09 May 2019, at 03:04, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2019 11:53, Freddie Cash wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:31 AM Karl Denninger wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a system here with about the same amount of net storage on it as
On 5/8/2019 11:53, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:31 AM Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>> I have a system here with about the same amount of net storage on it as
>> you did. It runs scrubs regularly; none of them take more than 8 hours
>> on *any* of the pools. The SSD-based pool is of
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:31 AM Karl Denninger wrote:
> I have a system here with about the same amount of net storage on it as
> you did. It runs scrubs regularly; none of them take more than 8 hours
> on *any* of the pools. The SSD-based pool is of course *much* faster
> but even the many-way
On Wed, 8 May 2019, Paul Mather wrote:
On May 8, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Paul Mather wrote:
due to lack of space. Interestingly have had another drive die in the
array - and it doesn't just have one or two sectors down it has a *lot* -
which was not noticed by the
On 5/8/2019 10:14, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> Paul Mather wrote:
>> On May 8, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Michelle Sullivan
>> wrote:
>>
Did you have regular pool scrubs enabled? It would have picked up
silent data corruption like this. It does for me.
>>> Yes, every month (once a month
>
>
> ZDB (unless I'm misreading it) is able to find all 34m+ files and
> verifies the checksums. The problem is in the zfs data structures (one
> definitely, two maybe, metaslabs fail checksums preventing the mounting
> (even read-only) of the volumes.)
>
> > Especially, how to you know
> >
Paul Mather wrote:
On May 8, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Paul Mather wrote:
due to lack of space. Interestingly have had another drive die in
the array - and it doesn't just have one or two sectors down it has
a *lot* - which was not noticed by the original machine - I moved
On May 8, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Paul Mather wrote:
due to lack of space. Interestingly have had another drive die in the
array - and it doesn't just have one or two sectors down it has a *lot*
- which was not noticed by the original machine - I moved the drive to
a
Paul Mather wrote:
due to lack of space. Interestingly have had another drive die in
the array - and it doesn't just have one or two sectors down it has a
*lot* - which was not noticed by the original machine - I moved the
drive to a byte copier which is where it's reporting 100's of
On May 7, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Paul Mather wrote:
On May 7, 2019, at 1:02 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
[[...]]
Umm.. well I install by memory stick images and I had a 10.2 and an
11.0 both of which had root on zfs as the default.. I had to manually
change them.
Borja Marcos via freebsd-stable wrote:
On 8 May 2019, at 05:09, Walter Parker wrote:
Would a disk rescue program for ZFS be a good idea? Sure. Should the lack
of a disk recovery program stop you from using ZFS? No. If you think so, I
suggest that you have your data integrity priorities in the
> On 8 May 2019, at 05:09, Walter Parker wrote:
> Would a disk rescue program for ZFS be a good idea? Sure. Should the lack
> of a disk recovery program stop you from using ZFS? No. If you think so, I
> suggest that you have your data integrity priorities in the wrong order
> (focusing on
14 matches
Mail list logo
