Re: [zfs-discuss] Need ZFS master!
I do apologies but I am completely lost here Maybe I am just not understanding. Are you saying that a slice has to be created on the seond drive before it can bee added to the pool? Thanks On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@oracle.com wrote: Hi John, Follow the steps in this section: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide Replacing/Relabeling the Root Pool Disk If the disk is correctly labeled with an SMI label, then you can skip down to steps 5-8 of this procedure. Thanks, Cindy On 07/12/10 16:06, john wrote: Hello all. I am new...very new to opensolaris and I am having an issue and have no idea what is going wrong. So I have 5 drives in my machine. all 500gb. I installed open solaris on the first drive and rebooted. . Now what I want to do is ad a second drive so they are mirrored. How does one do this!!! I am getting no where and need some help. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption?
While we're on the topic, has anyone used ZFS much with Vormetric's encryption product? Any feedback? Doug Linder -- Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merchantlink.com. THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and any attachments are proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not print, distribute, or copy this message or any attachments. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your computer. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Need ZFS master!
The whole disk layout should be copied from disk 1 to 2, then the slice on disk 2 that corresponds to the slice on disk 1 should be attached to the rpool which forms an rpool mirror (attached not added). Then you need to add the grub bootloader to disk 2. When it finishes resilvering then you have an rpool mirror. -Ross On Jul 12, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Beau J. Bechdol bbech...@gmail.com wrote: I do apologies but I am completely lost here Maybe I am just not understanding. Are you saying that a slice has to be created on the seond drive before it can bee added to the pool? Thanks On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@oracle.com wrote: Hi John, Follow the steps in this section: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide Replacing/Relabeling the Root Pool Disk If the disk is correctly labeled with an SMI label, then you can skip down to steps 5-8 of this procedure. Thanks, Cindy On 07/12/10 16:06, john wrote: Hello all. I am new...very new to opensolaris and I am having an issue and have no idea what is going wrong. So I have 5 drives in my machine. all 500gb. I installed open solaris on the first drive and rebooted. . Now what I want to do is ad a second drive so they are mirrored. How does one do this!!! I am getting no where and need some help. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering - how does ZFS make money for Oracle when they don't charge for it? Do you think it's such an important feature that it's a big factor in customers picking Solaris over other platforms? ZFS was the sole factor in my decision to buy a Sun server with solaris this year, to replace my netapp. In addition, I bought some dell machines and paid for solaris on those, to keep around as backup destinations for the production sun file server. I absolutely do believe ZFS is a huge selling point for sun hardware and solaris. Especially for file servers. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us] A private license, with support and indemnification from Sun, would shield Apple from any lawsuit from Netapp. The patent holder is not compelled in any way to offer a license for use of the patent. Without a patent license, shipping products can be stopped dead in their tracks. It may be true, that Netapp could stop apple from shipping OSX, if Apple had ZFS in OSX, and Netapp won the lawsuit. But there was a time when it was absolutely possible for Sun Apple to reach an agreement which would limit Apple's liability in the event of lawsuit waged against them. CDDL contains an explicit disclaimer of warranty, which means, if Apple were to download CDDL ZFS source code and compile and distribute it themselves, they would be fully liable for any lawsuit waged against them. But CDDL also allows for Sun to distribute ZFS binaries under a different license, in which Sun could have assumed responsibility for losses, in the event Apple were to be sued. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:51 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us] A private license, with support and indemnification from Sun, would shield Apple from any lawsuit from Netapp. The patent holder is not compelled in any way to offer a license for use of the patent. Without a patent license, shipping products can be stopped dead in their tracks. It may be true, that Netapp could stop apple from shipping OSX, if Apple had ZFS in OSX, and Netapp won the lawsuit. But there was a time when it was absolutely possible for Sun Apple to reach an agreement which would limit Apple's liability in the event of lawsuit waged against them. CDDL contains an explicit disclaimer of warranty, which means, if Apple were to download CDDL ZFS source code and compile and distribute it themselves, they would be fully liable for any lawsuit waged against them. But CDDL also allows for Sun to distribute ZFS binaries under a different license, in which Sun could have assumed responsibility for losses, in the event Apple were to be sued. That would not, IMO, have prevented any potential stop-ship order from keeping MacOS X shipping. I just think it would have created a situation where Apple could have insisted that Oracle (well Sun) reimburse it for lost revenue. The lawyers at Sun were typically defensive in that they frowned (very much) upon any legal agreements which left Sun in a position if unlimited legal liability. This actually nearly prevented the development of certain software, since that software required an NDA clause which provided for unlimited liability due to lost revenue were Sun to leak the NDA content. (We developed the software using openly obtainable materials rather than NDA content, to prevent this possibility.) - Garrett ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
On 7/12/10 Jul 12, 10:49 AM, Linder, Doug doug.lin...@merchantlink.com wrote: Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering - how does ZFS make money for Oracle when they don't charge for it? Do you think it's such an important feature that it's a big factor in customers picking Solaris over other platforms? I'm looking at a new web server for the company, and am considering Solaris specifically because of ZFS. (Oracle's lousy sales model-- specifically the unwillingness to give a price for a Solaris support contract without my having to send multiple emails to multiple addresses-- may yet push me back to my default CentOS platform, but to the extent that Oracle is even in the running it's because of ZFS.) -- Dave Pooser, ACSA Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
Edward Ned Harvey solar...@nedharvey.com wrote: CDDL contains an explicit disclaimer of warranty, which means, if Apple were to download CDDL ZFS source code and compile and distribute it themselves, they would be fully liable for any lawsuit waged against them. But CDDL also allows for Sun to distribute ZFS binaries under a different license, in which Sun could have assumed responsibility for losses, in the event Apple were to be sued. And in terms of market and commerce, you will not find a partner that will grant you full liability for software you got for free. Apple could probably have a chance to get indemnified by Sun if they did pay royalties for ZFS.. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/recv hanging in 2009.06
On Fri, July 9, 2010 16:49, BJ Quinn wrote: I have a couple of systems running 2009.06 that hang on relatively large zfs send/recv jobs. With the -v option, I see the snapshots coming across, and at some point the process just pauses, IO and CPU usage go to zero, and it takes a hard reboot to get back to normal. The same script running against the same data doesn't hang on 2008.05. There are maybe 100 snapshots, 200GB of data total. Just trying to send to a blank external USB drive in one case, and in the other, I'm restoring from a USB drive to a local drive, but the behavior is the same. I see that others have had a similar problem, but there doesn't seem to be any answers - https://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=384540 http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg34493.html http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg37158.html I'd like to stick with a released version of OpenSolaris, so I'm hoping that the answer isn't to switch to the dev repository and pull down b134. I still have this problem (I was msg34493 there). My original plan was to wait for the Spring release, to get me to a stable release on more recent code. I'm still following that plan, i.e. haven't done anything else yet. At the time the March release was expected to actually appear by April. Other than trying more recent code, I don't recall any useful ideas coming through the list. It seems like the thing people recommend as the backup scheme for ZFS simply doesn't work yet. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/recv hanging in 2009.06
On Fri, July 9, 2010 18:42, Giovanni Tirloni wrote: On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:49 PM, BJ Quinn bjqu...@seidal.com wrote: I have a couple of systems running 2009.06 that hang on relatively large zfs send/recv jobs. With the -v option, I see the snapshots coming across, and at some point the process just pauses, IO and CPU usage go to zero, and it takes a hard reboot to get back to normal. The same script running against the same data doesn't hang on 2008.05. There are issues running concurrent zfs receive in 2009.6. Try to run just one at a time. He's doing the same thing I'm doing -- one send, one receive. (But incremental replication.) Switching to a development build (b134) is probably the answer until we've a new release. Given that the spring stable release was my planned solution, I'm starting to think about doing something else myself. Does anybody have any idea what's up with the stable release, though? Has anything been said about the plans that I've maybe missed? -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recovering from an apparent ZFS Hang
Hi Cindy, I'm trying to demonstrate how ZFS behaves when a disk fails. The drive enclosure I'm using (http://www.icydock.com/product/mb561us-4s-1.html) says it supports hot swap, but that's not what I'm experiencing. When I plug the disk back in, all 4 disks are no longer recognizable until I restart the enclosure. This same demo works fine when using USB sticks, and maybe that's because each USB stick has its own controller. Thanks for your help, Brian -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS list snapshots incurs large delay
I have been running a pair of X4540's for almost 2 years now, the usual spec (Quad core, 64GB RAM, 48x 1TB). I have a pair of mirrored drives for rpool, and a Raidz set with 5-6 disks in each vdev for the rest of the disks. I am running snv_132 on both systems. I noticed an oddity on one particular system, that when running a scrub, or a zfs list -t snapshot, the results take forever. Mind you, these are identical systems in hardware, and software. The primary system replicates all data sets to the secondary nightly, so there isn't much of a discrepancy of space used. Primary system: # time zfs list -t snapshot | wc -l 979 real1m23.995s user0m0.360s sys 0m4.911s Secondary system: # time zfs list -t snapshot | wc -l 979 real0m1.534s user0m0.223s sys 0m0.663s At the time of running both of those, no other activity was happening, load average of .05 or so. Subsequent runs also take just as long on the primary, no matter how many times I run it, it will take about 1 minute and 25 seconds each time, very little drift (+- 1 second if that) Both systems are at about 77% used space on the storage pool, no other distinguishing factors that I can discern. Upon a reboot, performance is respectable for a little while, but within days, it will sink back to those levels. I suspect a memory leak, but both systems run the same software versions and packages, so I can't envision that. Would anyone have any ideas what may cause this? -- Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs root flash archive issue
I have created a flash archive from a Ldom on T5220 with zfs root solaris 10_u8. But after creation of flar the info shows the content_architectures=sun4c,sun4d,sun4m,sun4u,sun4us,sun4s but not sun4v due to which i 'm unable to install this flash archive on another Ldom on the same host. Is there any way to modify the content_architectures ? and whats the reason for missing sun4v architecture form the content_architecture ? flar -i zfsflar_ldom archive_id=4506fd9b45fba5b2c5e042715da50f0a files_archived_method=cpio creation_date=20100713054458 creation_master=e-u013 content_name=zfsBE creation_node=ezzz-u013 creation_hardware_class=sun4v creation_platform=SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise-T5220 creation_processor=sparc creation_release=5.10 creation_os_name=SunOS creation_os_version=Generic_141444-09 rootpool=rootpool bootfs=rootpool/ROOT/zfsBE snapname=zflash.100713.00.07 files_compressed_method=none files_archived_size=3869213825 files_unarchived_size=3869213825 content_architectures=sun4c,sun4d,sun4m,sun4u,sun4us,sun4s type=FULL -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [osol-help] ZFS list snapshots incurs large delay
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net wrote: I have been running a pair of X4540's for almost 2 years now, the usual spec (Quad core, 64GB RAM, 48x 1TB). I have a pair of mirrored drives for rpool, and a Raidz set with 5-6 disks in each vdev for the rest of the disks. I am running snv_132 on both systems. I noticed an oddity on one particular system, that when running a scrub, or a zfs list -t snapshot, the results take forever. Mind you, these are identical systems in hardware, and software. The primary system replicates all data sets to the secondary nightly, so there isn't much of a discrepancy of space used. Primary system: # time zfs list -t snapshot | wc -l 979 real 1m23.995s user 0m0.360s sys 0m4.911s Secondary system: # time zfs list -t snapshot | wc -l 979 real 0m1.534s user 0m0.223s sys 0m0.663s At the time of running both of those, no other activity was happening, load average of .05 or so. Subsequent runs also take just as long on the primary, no matter how many times I run it, it will take about 1 minute and 25 seconds each time, very little drift (+- 1 second if that) Both systems are at about 77% used space on the storage pool, no other distinguishing factors that I can discern. Upon a reboot, performance is respectable for a little while, but within days, it will sink back to those levels. I suspect a memory leak, but both systems run the same software versions and packages, so I can't envision that. Would anyone have any ideas what may cause this? It could be a disk failing and dragging I/O down with it. Try to check for high asvc_t with `iostat -XCn 1` and errors in `iostat -En` Any timeouts or retries in /var/adm/messages ? -- Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs root flash archive issue
The setting of the content_architectures field is likely to be independent of the file system type, so at least at first glance, I don't think that this is zfs issue. You might try this question at install-disc...@opensolaris.org. Lori On 07/13/10 11:45 AM, Ketan wrote: I have created a flash archive from a Ldom on T5220 with zfs root solaris 10_u8. But after creation of flar the info shows the content_architectures=sun4c,sun4d,sun4m,sun4u,sun4us,sun4s but not sun4v due to which i 'm unable to install this flash archive on another Ldom on the same host. Is there any way to modify the content_architectures ? and whats the reason for missing sun4v architecture form the content_architecture ? flar -i zfsflar_ldom archive_id=4506fd9b45fba5b2c5e042715da50f0a files_archived_method=cpio creation_date=20100713054458 creation_master=e-u013 content_name=zfsBE creation_node=ezzz-u013 creation_hardware_class=sun4v creation_platform=SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise-T5220 creation_processor=sparc creation_release=5.10 creation_os_name=SunOS creation_os_version=Generic_141444-09 rootpool=rootpool bootfs=rootpool/ROOT/zfsBE snapname=zflash.100713.00.07 files_compressed_method=none files_archived_size=3869213825 files_unarchived_size=3869213825 content_architectures=sun4c,sun4d,sun4m,sun4u,sun4us,sun4s type=FULL ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [osol-help] ZFS list snapshots incurs large delay
It could be a disk failing and dragging I/O down with it. Try to check for high asvc_t with `iostat -XCn 1` and errors in `iostat -En` Any timeouts or retries in /var/adm/messages ? -- Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com I checked for high service times during a scrub, and all disks are pretty equal.During a scrub, each disks peaks about 350 reads/sec, with an asvc time of up to 30 during those read spikes (I assume it means 30ms, which isn't terrible for a highly loaded SATA disk). No errors reported by smartctl, iostat, or adm/messages I opened a case on Sunsolve, but I fear since I am running a dev build that I will be out of luck. I cannot run 2009.06 due to CIFS segfaults, and problems with zfs send/recv hanging pools (well documented issues). I'd run Solaris proper, but not having in-kernel CIFS or COMSTAR would be a major setback for me. -- Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/recv hanging in 2009.06
I was going with the spring release myself, and finally got tired of waiting. Got to build some new servers. I don't believe you've missed anything. As I'm sure you know, it was originally officially 2010.02, then it was officially 2010.03, then it was rumored to be .04, sort of leaked as .05, semi-officially .06/.1H, and when that last one passed, even the rumor mill has gone pretty well dead. The best I can find now is someone rumoring Q4 (although there was some discussion as to whether that was calendar Q4, or Oracle's fiscal year Q4, which would make it a year away). At any rate, I'm done waiting on the new release, and out of principle I'm not going to use a development release in a real world environment. I don't care what the condition of the code is, if Oracle won't declare it as a release, then I can't either to my clients. FYI 2008.11 doesn't appear to have this problem. I've done some testing that seemed to break 2009.06 every time, and so far it has passed. That's important to me since I need the zfs_write_limit_override setting, which isn't available in 2008.05. So for me it looks like 2008.11 until 2010.Unicorn comes out or BTRFS gets deduplication (or maybe even if not). -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL SSD failed
ds == Dmitry Sorokin dmitry.soro...@bmcorp.ca writes: ds The SSD drive has failed and zpool is unavailable anymore. AIUI, 6733267 Allow a pool to be imported with a missing slog is only fixed for the case where the pool is still imported. If you export it without removing the slog first, the pool is lost. Instructions here: http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=377018 http://github.com/pjjw/logfix/tree/master how how to ``fake out'' the lazy assertions, but you have to prepare to use the workaround before your slog fails by noting its GUID. If you don't know the GUID, then it is as Richard Elling says, ``a rather long trial-and-error process.'' Decoded from Fanboi-ese into English, the ``rather long'' process is ``finding a sha1 hash collision.'' so either UTFS or ``restore from backup.'' :( pgpyK7PHBQp9Y.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS snapshot zvols/iscsi send backup
Thanks for quick response. I appreciate it much. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/recv hanging in 2009.06
On 07/14/10 03:55 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Fri, July 9, 2010 16:49, BJ Quinn wrote: I have a couple of systems running 2009.06 that hang on relatively large zfs send/recv jobs. With the -v option, I see the snapshots coming across, and at some point the process just pauses, IO and CPU usage go to zero, and it takes a hard reboot to get back to normal. The same script running against the same data doesn't hang on 2008.05. There are maybe 100 snapshots, 200GB of data total. Just trying to send to a blank external USB drive in one case, and in the other, I'm restoring from a USB drive to a local drive, but the behavior is the same. I see that others have had a similar problem, but there doesn't seem to be any answers - https://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=384540 http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg34493.html http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg37158.html I'd like to stick with a released version of OpenSolaris, so I'm hoping that the answer isn't to switch to the dev repository and pull down b134. I still have this problem (I was msg34493 there). My original plan was to wait for the Spring release, to get me to a stable release on more recent code. I'm still following that plan, i.e. haven't done anything else yet. At the time the March release was expected to actually appear by April. Other than trying more recent code, I don't recall any useful ideas coming through the list. It seems like the thing people recommend as the backup scheme for ZFS simply doesn't work yet. It has been working for a long time. All of the lock-up issues I had were fixed in Solaris 10 update 8. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL SSD failed
Hi Richard, What happened is this SSD gave some IO errors and the pool become degraded, so after the machine got rebooted, I found that the pool became unavailable. The SSD drive itself is toasted, as bios now reports it as 8 GB in size and name is Inuem SS E Cootmoader!, so all the partitions are gone and it is completely unusable at the moment. I was able to find GUID of the slog from zpool.cache file that I backed up in January this year. However I was unable to compile logfix binary and the one provided by the author (compiled on snv_111) dumps core on snv_129 and snv_134. Does anyone have logfix binary compiled for snv_129? Thanks, Dmitry -Original Message- From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:12 PM To: Dmitry Sorokin Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL SSD failed Is the drive still there? If so, then try removing it or temporarily zeroing out the s0 label. If that allows zpool import -F to work, then please let me know and I'll add your post to a new bug report. I have seen something like this recently and have been trying to reproduce. -- richard On Jul 12, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Dmitry Sorokin dmitry.soro...@bmcorp.ca wrote: I have/had Intel M25-E 32GB SSD drive as ZIL/cache device (2 GB ZIL slice0 and the rest is cache slice1) The SSD drive has failed and zpool is unavailable anymore. Is there any way to import the pool/recover data, even with some latest transactions lost? I’ve tried zdb –e -bcsvL pool name but it didn’t work. Below are the details: [r...@storage ~]# uname -a SunOS storage 5.11 snv_129 i86pc i386 i86pc [r...@storage ~]# zpool import pool: neosys id: 1346464136813319526 state: UNAVAIL status: The pool was last accessed by another system. action: The pool cannot be imported due to damaged devices or data. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-EY config: neosys UNAVAIL missing device raidz2-0 ONLINE c4t0d0 ONLINE c4t1d0 ONLINE c4t2d0 ONLINE c4t3d0 ONLINE c4t4d0 ONLINE c4t5d0 ONLINE c4t6d0 ONLINE c4t7d0 ONLINE [r...@storage ~]# zdb -e neosys Configuration for import: vdev_children: 2 version: 22 pool_guid: 1346464136813319526 name: 'neosys' state: 0 hostid: 577477 hostname: 'storage' vdev_tree: type: 'root' id: 0 guid: 1346464136813319526 children[0]: type: 'raidz' id: 0 guid: 12671265726510370964 nparity: 2 metaslab_array: 25 metaslab_shift: 35 ashift: 9 asize: 4000755744768 is_log: 0 children[0]: type: 'disk' id: 0 guid: 10831801542309994254 phys_path: '/p...@0,0/pci10de,3...@f/pci1000,3...@0/s...@0,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 3489 path: '/dev/dsk/c4t0d0s0' devid: 'id1,s...@n5000cca32cc21642/a' children[1]: type: 'disk' id: 1 guid: 39402223705908332 phys_path: '/p...@0,0/pci10de,3...@f/pci1000,3...@0/s...@1,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 3488 path: '/dev/dsk/c4t1d0s0' devid: 'id1,s...@n5000cca32cc1f061/a' children[2]: type: 'disk' id: 2 guid: 5642566785254158202 phys_path: '/p...@0,0/pci10de,3...@f/pci1000,3...@0/s...@2,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 3487 path: '/dev/dsk/c4t2d0s0' devid: 'id1,s...@n5000cca32cc20121/a' children[3]: type: 'disk' id: 3 guid: 5006664765902732873 phys_path: '/p...@0,0/pci10de,3...@f/pci1000,3...@0/s...@3,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 3486 path: '/dev/dsk/c4t3d0s0' devid: 'id1,s...@n5000cca32cf43053/a' children[4]: type: 'disk' id: 4 guid: 106648579627377843 phys_path: '/p...@0,0/pci10de,3...@f/pci1000,3...@0/s...@4,0:a' whole_disk: 1 DTL: 3485 path:
[zfs-discuss] question re how data is stored in L2ARC cache
Hello, I'm using Nexenta and am impressed by allof the OpenSolaris, ZFS and Nexenta parts, thank you for feeing us of the RAID hole. Having created zvols in a pool (6 mirror sets, 2 SSDs for L2ARC), with compression turned on, I am now realising that the data stored in the L2ARC SSD is the 'raw', not the 'compressed' form (just finished reading http://blogs.sun.com/dap/entry/zfs_compression). Does anyone know if it would be technically feasible (one day) to cache the compressed data there ? For data (like databases) that compresses quite well (e.g. 3.5x), if the compressed form is stored, a 100GB L2ARC cache essentially would hold 350GB, which would be a big win. If this is potentially in the pipeline great... Otherwise, I'll go back to the SSD shop... Many thanks again Frederic -- Frederic Vander Elst Group Head of IT The pH Group Direct Line: 020 7598 0320 Office Line: 020 7598 0310 Mobile: 07817 179 593 Fax: 020 7598 0311 www.phgroup.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS Status Graph?
One question I did have and it might be a stupid one. SO on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN6iDzesEs0feature=related or this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGIwg6ye1gE What is the greenbars that is on the right of the projector screen? Thanks -Beau ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recovering from an apparent ZFS Hang
Actually, there's still the primary issue of this post - the apparent hang. At the moment, I have 3 zpool commands running, all apparently hung and doing nothing: bleon...@opensolaris:~$ ps -ef | grep zpool root 20465 20411 0 18:10:44 pts/4 0:00 zpool clear r5pool root 20408 20403 0 18:08:19 pts/3 0:00 zpool status r5pool root 20396 17612 0 18:08:04 pts/2 0:00 zpool scrub r5pool You can see all of them are not very busy, and seem to be waiting on something: bleon...@opensolaris:~# ptime -p 20465 real12:25.188031517 user0.004037420 sys 0.008682963 bleon...@opensolaris:~# ptime -p 20408 real15:03.977246851 user0.002700817 sys 0.005662413 bleon...@opensolaris:~# ptime -p 20396 real15:24.793176743 user0.002954137 sys 0.014851215 And as I said earlier, I can't control+break or kill any of these processes. Time for hard-reboot. /Brian -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Edward Ned Harvey solar...@nedharvey.com wrote: ZFS was the sole factor in my decision to buy a Sun server with solaris this year, to replace my netapp. In addition, I bought some dell machines and paid for solaris on those, to keep around as backup destinations for the production sun file server. I absolutely do believe ZFS is a huge selling point for sun hardware and solaris. Especially for file servers. Yes, as long as you're buying that OS from Oracle. :-) But don't forget that Oracle looks like killing OpenSolaris and entire community after all: there are no latest builds at genunix.org (latest is 134 and seems like that's it), Oracle stopped build OSOL after build 135 (I have no idea where this build is) and Oracle is building Solaris Next or something like that — I have no idea where to get that thing either. So no more free Solaris that you can use in a business, supporting by yourself, no more chance to build a reliable free storage or something like that (Nexenta is building their stuff on top of *outdated* 134 build). Latest checkout won't build OS either (I tried and it fails). So the repository might be intentionally broken, in order you not to build stuff yourself, but actually go and buy Oracle product. Also no more free security updates and no more hardware-only support. That means that community soon will shrink to zero. Oracle basically lied about Fedora/RHEL model analogy (which would be great if that would happen). I wish I am wrong, but looks to me pretty much game over, folks: Oracle appeared to be complete idiots towards the community. Same probably will happen to Java. :-( -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs root flash archive issue
Ok thanx will do that . -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dave Pooser I'm looking at a new web server for the company, and am considering Solaris specifically because of ZFS. (Oracle's lousy sales model-- specifically the unwillingness to give a price for a Solaris support contract without my having to send multiple emails to multiple addresses-- may yet push me back to my default CentOS platform, but to the extent that Oracle is even in the running it's because of ZFS.) Here's a really simple way to get some pricing information: Go to Dell.com. Servers. Servers. Rack. Enhanced. PowerEdge R710 (Customize.) You could pick any server that supports solaris. I just chose the R710 because I know it does. Operating system: None$1299 ($0) 1yr basic $1768 ($469) 1yr standard $2149 ($850) 1yr premium $2569 ($1270) 3yr basic $2533 ($1234) 3yr standard $3619 ($2320) 3yr premium $4753 ($3454) If you're new to solaris etc, I might not recommend the Dell because installation isn't straightforward. Hardware support exists, but it's less enterprise than what you might expect. The sun hardware is the recommended way to go, but it's also more expensive. Then again, if you're considering centos, you're probably not running on enterprise grade hardware. I know I can't get centos to reliably run things like OpenManage for raid controller configuration. Which is necessary if you want to replace hotspare drives without rebooting the server. You don't need openmanage if you have no hotspares ... for example ... all disks in a raid6 would be ok and autoresilver without intervention. I do run solaris on an R710. There is no openmanage, but there is MegaCLI, which was ridiculously hard to find, and ridiculously confusing to use, and poorly documented and poorly supported if you're confused. On the dell, assuming you use perc, assuming you have a hotspare, the recommended solution for linux would be RHEL or SLES and not centos. You'd pay $350/yr as compared to solaris $470/yr ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
On 07/14/10 04:20 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Here's a really simple way to get some pricing information: Go to Dell.com. Servers. Servers. Rack. Enhanced. PowerEdge R710 (Customize.) You could pick any server that supports solaris. I just chose the R710 because I know it does. Operating system: None$1299 ($0) 1yr basic $1768 ($469) 1yr standard $2149 ($850) 1yr premium $2569 ($1270) 3yr basic $2533 ($1234) 3yr standard $3619 ($2320) 3yr premium $4753 ($3454) If you're new to solaris etc, I might not recommend the Dell because installation isn't straightforward. Hardware support exists, but it's less enterprise than what you might expect. The sun hardware is the recommended way to go, but it's also more expensive. Not in my neck of the woods, Sun have always been most competitive. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
From: BM [mailto:bogdan.maryn...@gmail.com] But don't forget that Oracle looks like killing OpenSolaris and entire community after all: there are no latest builds at genunix.org (latest is 134 and seems like that's it), Oracle stopped build OSOL after build 135 (I have no idea where this build is) It is true there's no new build published in the last 3 months. But you can't use that to assume they're killing the community. I have said many times: Consider what the possibilities are. Solaris 10 is lacking features and bugfixes which are present in the free opensolaris. Very marketable features, such as dedupe, and log device removal. Oracle has stated that their focus is on commercialization of solaris. Solaris 10 is long overdue for a new release. It's entirely possible (and would make total sense) that they're shifting development effort away from the opensolaris community, to push out the Next version of solaris... Probably called Oracle Solaris 11. They said they would release the next opensolaris in H1 this year, but they're overdue. They also said they would release the next Solaris this year. It's entirely possible they just need all the developers they have, to deliver that goal. IMHO, I think this possibility is more likely than the we are killing opensolaris possibility. The latter wouldn't make any sense. and Oracle is building Solaris Next or something like that — I have no idea where to get that thing either. There's no known name for that. The Next version of solaris, I suspect, will be called Oracle Solaris 11, but until that is announced, nobody knows. And it's colloquially and unofficially called Solaris Next or Solaris 11 Whenever that becomes available, it will be available via the usual commercial channels. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
From: Ian Collins [mailto:i...@ianshome.com] From: Edward Ned Harvey The sun hardware is the recommended way to go, but it's also more expensive. Not in my neck of the woods, Sun have always been most competitive. Interesting. I wonder what's different between you and me? I most often buy relatively low-end servers, say, one CPU, 4 cores, 16G ram, 6TB disks SATA. I might expect to pay $3k or $4k. Last October, I didn't see any sun offering below $6k... I know Sun has better high end servers. Maybe that's what you're buying and maybe that's the area where sun's prices are more competitive? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
