Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Mar 4, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: > Hi Robert, > > We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent > sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window. > > Yes, you can do #2 below and the pool size will be adjusted down to the > smaller size. Before you do this, I would check the sizes of both > spares. > I already checked, they are equivalent. > If both spares are "equivalent" smaller sizes, you could use those to > build the replacement pool with the larger disks and then put the extra > larger disks on the shelf. > > Thanks, > > Cindy I think thats what I will do, I don't wanna spend money if I don't have to... I'm kinda funny that way :-) Thanks for the info Cindy -- Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > On Fri, Mar 4 at 9:22, Robert Hartzell wrote: >> In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz >> storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks >> failed last night so I shut down the server and replaced it with a spare. >> When I tried to zpool replace the disk I get: >> >> zpool replace tank c10t0d0 >> cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small >> >> The 4 original disk partition tables look like this: >> >> Current partition table (original): >> Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) >> >> Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector >> 0usrwm34 149.04GB 312560350 >> 1 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 2 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 3 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 4 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 5 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 6 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 8 reservedwm 3125603518.00MB 312576734 >> >> Spare disk partition table looks like this: >> >> Current partition table (original): >> Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) >> >> Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector >> 0usrwm34 149.00GB 312483582 >> 1 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 2 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 3 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 4 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 5 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 6 unassignedwm 0 0 0 >> 8 reservedwm 3124835838.00MB 312499966 >> >> So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are >> about 40mb smaller then the original disks. > > > One comment: The IDEMA LBA01 spec size of a 160GB device is > 312,581,808 sectors. > > Instead of those WD models, where neither the old nor new drives > follow the IDEMA recommendation, consider buying a drive that reports > that many sectors. Almost all models these days should be following > the IDEMA recommendations due to all the troubles people have had. > > --eric > > -- > Eric D. Mudama > edmud...@bounceswoosh.org > Thats encouraging, if I have to I would rather buy one new disk then 4. Thanks, Robert -- Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Mar 4, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: > Robert, > > Which Solaris release is this? > > Thanks, > > Cindy > Solaris 11 express 2010.11 -- Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
On Mar 4, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Robert Hartzell wrote: > In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz > storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks > failed last night so I shut down the server and replaced it with a spare. > When I tried to zpool replace the disk I get: > > zpool replace tank c10t0d0 > cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small > > The 4 original disk partition tables look like this: > > Current partition table (original): > Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > > Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0usrwm34 149.04GB 312560350 > 1 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 2 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 3 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 4 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 5 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 6 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 8 reservedwm 3125603518.00MB 312576734 > > Spare disk partition table looks like this: > > Current partition table (original): > Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) > > Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0usrwm34 149.00GB 312483582 > 1 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 2 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 3 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 4 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 5 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 6 unassignedwm 0 0 0 > 8 reservedwm 3124835838.00MB 312499966 > > So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are about > 40mb smaller then the original disks. > > I know I can just add a larger disk but I would rather user the hardware I > have if possible. > 1) Is there anyway to replace the failed disk with one of the spares? > 2) Can I recreate the zpool using 3 of the original disks and one of the > slightly smaller spares? Will zpool/zfs adjust its size to the smaller disk? > 3) If #2 is possible would I still be able to use the last still shelved disk > as a spare? > > If #2 is possible I would probably recreate the zpool as raidz2 instead of > the current raidz1. > > Any info/comments would be greatly appreciated. > > Robert > > > > > You cannot. That's why I suggested two years ago that they chop off 1% from > the end of the disk at install time to equalize drive sizes. That way you > you wouldn't run into this problem trying to replace disks from a different > vendor or different batch. The response was that Sun makes sure all drives > are exactly the same size (although I do recall someone on this forum having > this issue with Sun OEM disks as well). It's ridiculous they don't take into > account the slight differences in drive sizes from vendor to vendor. Forcing > you to single-source your disks is a bad habit to get into IMO. > > --Tim > Well that sucks... So I guess the only option is to replace the disk with a larger one? Or are you saying thats not possible either? I can upgrade to larger disks but then there is no guarantee that I can even buy 4 identical disks off the shelf at any one time. Thanks for the info -- Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small
In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks failed last night so I shut down the server and replaced it with a spare. When I tried to zpool replace the disk I get: zpool replace tank c10t0d0 cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small The 4 original disk partition tables look like this: Current partition table (original): Total disk sectors available: 312560317 + 16384 (reserved sectors) Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector 0usrwm34 149.04GB 312560350 1 unassignedwm 0 0 0 2 unassignedwm 0 0 0 3 unassignedwm 0 0 0 4 unassignedwm 0 0 0 5 unassignedwm 0 0 0 6 unassignedwm 0 0 0 8 reservedwm 3125603518.00MB 312576734 Spare disk partition table looks like this: Current partition table (original): Total disk sectors available: 312483549 + 16384 (reserved sectors) Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector 0usrwm34 149.00GB 312483582 1 unassignedwm 0 0 0 2 unassignedwm 0 0 0 3 unassignedwm 0 0 0 4 unassignedwm 0 0 0 5 unassignedwm 0 0 0 6 unassignedwm 0 0 0 8 reservedwm 3124835838.00MB 312499966 So it seems that two of the disks are slightly different models and are about 40mb smaller then the original disks. I know I can just add a larger disk but I would rather user the hardware I have if possible. 1) Is there anyway to replace the failed disk with one of the spares? 2) Can I recreate the zpool using 3 of the original disks and one of the slightly smaller spares? Will zpool/zfs adjust its size to the smaller disk? 3) If #2 is possible would I still be able to use the last still shelved disk as a spare? If #2 is possible I would probably recreate the zpool as raidz2 instead of the current raidz1. Any info/comments would be greatly appreciated. Robert -- Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net, Inc. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?
On 08/16/10 10:38 PM, George Wilson wrote: Robert Hartzell wrote: On 08/16/10 07:47 PM, George Wilson wrote: The root filesystem on the root pool is set to 'canmount=noauto' so you need to manually mount it first using 'zfs mount '. Then run 'zfs mount -a'. - George mounting the dataset failed because the /mnt dir was not empty and "zfs mount -a" failed I guess because the first command failed. It's possible that as part of the initial import that one of the mount points tried to create a directory under /mnt. You should first unmount everything associated with that pool, then ensure that /mnt is empty and mount the root filesystem first. Don't mount anything else until the root is mounted. - George Awesome! That worked... just recovered 100GB of data! Thanks for the help -- Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?
On 08/16/10 07:47 PM, George Wilson wrote: The root filesystem on the root pool is set to 'canmount=noauto' so you need to manually mount it first using 'zfs mount '. Then run 'zfs mount -a'. - George mounting the dataset failed because the /mnt dir was not empty and "zfs mount -a" failed I guess because the first command failed. -- Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?
On 08/16/10 07:39 PM, Mark Musante wrote: On 16 Aug 2010, at 22:30, Robert Hartzell wrote: cd /mnt ; ls bertha export var ls bertha boot etc where is the rest of the file systems and data? By default, root filesystems are not mounted. Try doing a "zfs mount bertha/ROOT/snv_134" This didn't work,,, pfexec zfs mount bertha/ROOT/snv_134 cannot mount '/mnt': directory is not empty do I need set the mount point to a different location? -- Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] How do I Import rpool to an alternate location?
I have a disk which is 1/2 of a boot disk mirror from a failed system that I would like to extract some data from. So i install the disk to a test system and do: zpool import -R /mnt -f rpool bertha which gives me: bertha102G 126G84K /mnt/bertha bertha/ROOT 34.3G 126G19K legacy bertha/ROOT/snv_134 34.3G 126G 10.9G /mnt bertha/Vbox 46.9G 126G 46.9G /mnt/export/Vbox bertha/dump 2.00G 126G 2.00G - bertha/export8.05G 126G31K /mnt/export bertha/export/home 8.05G 52.0G 8.01G /mnt/export/home bertha/mail 1.54M 5.00G 1.16M /mnt/var/mail bertha/swap 4G 130G 181M - bertha/zones 6.86G 126G24K /mnt/export/zones bertha/zones/bz1 6.05G 126G24K /mnt/export/zones/bz1 bertha/zones/bz1/ROOT6.05G 126G21K legacy bertha/zones/bz1/ROOT/zbe6.05G 126G 6.05G legacy bertha/zones/bz2 821M 126G24K /mnt/export/zones/bz2 bertha/zones/bz2/ROOT 821M 126G21K legacy bertha/zones/bz2/ROOT/zbe 821M 126G 821M legacy cd /mnt ; ls bertha export var ls bertha boot etc where is the rest of the file systems and data? -- Robert Hartzell b...@rwhartzell.net RwHartzell.Net ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
