Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool upgrade wrecked GRUB
Luca Morettoni reported a similar behavior (i.e. a perfectly running system that drops into grub on reboot) on indiana-discuss. I wonder if the issue is that installgrub is updating the MBR on one disk. If the second disk does not have an updated grub menu, that would explain what you are seeing. If this indeed is the issue, then what is puzzling is why did the BIOS change the boot order ? Was the BIOS updated and the values got reset to some default values ? Lori Alt wrote: Seymour Krebs wrote: Machine is running x86 snv_94 after recent upgrade from opensolaris 2008.05. ZFS and zpool reported no troubles except suggesting upgrade for from ver.10 to ver.11. seemed like a good idea at the time. system up for several days after that point then took down for some unrelated maintenance. now will not boot the opensol, drops to grub prompt, no menus. zfs was mirrored on two disks c6d0s0 and c7d0. I never noted the GRUB commands for booting and not really familiar with the nomenclature. at this point I am hoping that a burn of SXCE snv_94 will give me access to the zfs pools so I can try update-grub but at this point it will be about 9 hours to download the .iso and I kinda need to work on data residing in that system I'll try to help, but I'm confused by a few things. First, when you say that you upgraded from OpenSolaris 2008.05 to snv_94, what do you mean? Because I'm not sure how one upgrades an IPS-based release to the older SVR4 packages-based release type. In the IPS world, one upgrades using the command pkg image-update. pkg commands link with beadm libraries. rpool is snapshotted, then cloned. It is mounted on a temporary mountpoint and then the contents are upgraded. Very similar to live upgrade for zfs. -Sanjay Do you mean that you did an initial install using snv_94? If so, did you select a zfs root or a ufs root? At what point were you presented with the suggestion to upgrade the pool from ver.10 to ver.11? Also, you write that you are doing a burn of SXCE snv_94, but how did you do the upgrade (or whatever) to snv_94 in the first place without a snv_94 install medium? Lori any suggestions thanks, sgk This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool import not working - I broke my pool...
Just a thought, before I go and wipe this zpool, is there any way to manually recreate the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache file? Ross Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:42:43 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool import not working - I broke my pool... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.orgRichard Elling wrote: Ross wrote: I'm trying to import a pool I just exported but I can't, even -f doesn't help. Every time I try I'm getting an error: cannot import 'rc-pool': one or more devices is currently unavailable Now I suspect the reason it's not happy is that the pool used to have a ZIL :) Correct. What you want is CR 6707530, log device failure needs some work http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6707530 which Neil has been working on, scheduled for b96. Actually no. That CR mentioned the problem and talks about splitting out the bug, as it's really a separate problem. I've just done that and here's the new CR which probably won't be visible immediately to you: 6733267 Allow a pool to be imported with a missing slog Here's the Description: --- This CR is being broken out from 6707530 log device failure needs some work When Separate Intent logs (slogs) were designed they were given equal status in the pool device tree. This was because they can contain committed changes to the pool. So if one is missing it is assumed to be important to the integrity of the application(s) that wanted the data committed synchronously, and thus a pool cannot be imported with a missing slog. However, we do allow a pool to be missing a slog on boot up if it's in the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache file. So this sends a mixed message. We should allow a pool to be imported without a slog if -f is used and to not import without -f but perhaps with a better error message. It's the guidsum check that actually rejects imports with missing devices. We could have a separate guidsum for the main pool devices (non slog/cache). --- _ Win a voice over part with Kung Fu Panda Live Search and 100’s of Kung Fu Panda prizes to win with Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571439/direct/01/___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS and disk partitioning
I am trying to upgrade my laptop hard drive, and want to use Live-upgrade. What I have done so far is: 1. Moved the old drive to an external enclosure 2. Made it bootable (At this point I had to overcome the first obstacle - due to ZFS storing the disk device path in the ZFS structure it refused to automatically mount the root file system. The work-around involved booting to safe mode and mounting the zfs file systems, then rebooting. Note previously I had to re-do this even when moving the disk from one USB port to another. The disk is now portable at least between USB ports, seemingly after zpool upgrade to v11) 3. Installed the new drive into the laptop. 4. Partitioned it using Solaris/fdisk. Oops. At this point I had to overcome the second obstacle - the system failed to find the root pool. The eventual solution (work arround) was to boot from a live CD and wipe the partition table from the internal disk. 5. Trying to create a partition table on the disk again resulted in format telling me the disk type is unknown. A partial work-arround was to temporarily put the whole disk under zfs control and then destroying the pool. This resulted in an EFI label being created on the disk. From here it was possible to delete the EFI partition and create new partitions, but Solaris does not properly recognize the primary partitions created. The desired outcome of the partitioning is: fdisk P1 = Solaris2 (oxbf) to be used as ZFS root fdisk P2 = (to be used as ZFS data pool) fdisk P3 = NTFS... Still debating whether I want to have a copy of Windows consuming disk space... I still have to finish Far Cry some time. fdisk P4 = Extended partition, will be sub-partitioned for Linux. The best I've been able to do so far is to use Linux to create P1 and P2 above with neither made active. If either is made active, I can no longer boot from the external disk (grub fails to find the root). But Linux did not properly create the partition table. AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS: 0. c0d0 WDC WD25- WD-WXE508NW759-0001-232.89GB /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],2/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0) 1. c2t0d0 DEFAULT cyl 2688 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63 /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1179,[EMAIL PROTECTED],7/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 Specify disk (enter its number)[0]: selecting c0d0 NO Alt slice No defect list found [disk formatted, no defect list found] Entering the FDISK menu, I see Total disk size is 30401 cylinders Cylinder size is 16065 (512 byte) blocks Cylinders Partition StatusType Start End Length% = == = === == === 1 Solaris2 0 42564257 14 2 EFI4256 2614021885 72 SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Create a partition 2. Specify the active partition 3. Delete a partition 4. Change between Solaris and Solaris2 Partition IDs 5. Exit (update disk configuration and exit) 6. Cancel (exit without updating disk configuration) Enter Selection: Going to the partition menu, I try to create a Slice 0 of the entire disk: partition mod Select partitioning base: 0. Current partition table (original) 1. All Free Hog Choose base (enter number) [0]? 1 Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector 0 unassignedwm 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Do you wish to continue creating a new partition table based on above table[yes]? 0 `0' is not expected. Do you wish to continue creating a new partition table based on above table[yes]? yes Free Hog partition[6]? 0 Enter size of partition 1 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 2 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 3 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 4 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 5 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 6 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 7 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector 0usrwm34 232.88GB 488379741 1 unassignedwm 0 0 0 2 unassignedwm 0 0 0 3 unassignedwm 0 0 0 4 unassignedwm 0
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool upgrade wrecked GRUB
You can try to boot from Opensolaris CD, import rpool, mount the root filesystem and upgrade the grub. Regards, Andre W. Seymour Krebs wrote: Machine is running x86 snv_94 after recent upgrade from opensolaris 2008.05. ZFS and zpool reported no troubles except suggesting upgrade for from ver.10 to ver.11. seemed like a good idea at the time. system up for several days after that point then took down for some unrelated maintenance. now will not boot the opensol, drops to grub prompt, no menus. zfs was mirrored on two disks c6d0s0 and c7d0. I never noted the GRUB commands for booting and not really familiar with the nomenclature. at this point I am hoping that a burn of SXCE snv_94 will give me access to the zfs pools so I can try update-grub but at this point it will be about 9 hours to download the .iso and I kinda need to work on data residing in that system any suggestions thanks, sgk This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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] S10u6, zfs and zones
dick hoogendijk wrote: My server runs S10u5. All slices are UFS. I run a couple of sparse zones on a seperate slice mounted on /zones. When S10u6 comes out booting of ZFS will become possible. That is great news. However, will it be possible to have those zones I run now too? you can migrate pre u5 ufs to u6 zfs via lucreate, zones included. There is no support issues for zones on a system with zfs root, that I'm aware of, and Lu ( Live upgrade ) in u6 will support zones on zfs upgrade. I always understood ZFS and root zones are difficult. I hope to be able to change all FS to ZFS, including the space for the sparse zones. zones can be on zfs or any other supported config in combination with zfs root. Is there a specific question you had in mind with regard to sparse zones and zfs root, no too clear if I answered your actual query. Enda Does somebody have more information on this? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] evaluate ZFS ACL
Paul B. Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was curious if there was any utility or library function available to evaluate a ZFS ACL. The standard POSIX access(2) call is available to evaluate access by the current process, but I would like to evaluate an ACL in one process that would be able to determine whether or not some other user had a particular permission. Obviously, the running process would need to have read privileges on the ACL itself, but I'd rather not reimplement the complexity of actually interpreting the ACL. Something like: access(/path/to/file, R_OK, 400) Where 400 is the UID of the user whose access should be tested. Clearly This is not the POSIX access() call which only has 2 parameters. Depending on the platform where you are, there is either access(/path/to/file, R_OK | E_OK ) or eaccess(/path/to/file, R_OK) euidaccess(/path/to/file, R_OK) Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] implications of using whole disk and other OS
I read that for performance reasons (using the disks write cache) it is advised to use whole disks rather than slices for zfs pools. In a dual-boot scenario with FreeBSD, Linux, Windows XP etc. (of course on another disk with partitions) are there any risks involved having such a disk without a partition table? It reminds me of FreeBSD's dangerously dedicated mode. From http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/disks.html#DANGEROUSLY-DEDICATED So why it is called “dangerous”? A disk in this mode does not contain what normal PC utilities would consider a valid fdisk(8) table. Depending on how well they have been designed, they might complain at you once they are getting in contact with such a disk, or even worse, they might damage the BSD bootstrap without even asking or notifying you. Is there any experience that dedicated zfs disks might be harmed by a not zfs aware OS/software? 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] OpenSolaris+ZFS+RAIDZ+VirtualBox - ready for production systems?
Hi Evert, Sun positions virtualbox as desktop virtualization software. It only support 32bit with 1 CPU only. If this met your requirement, it should run ok. Regards, Andre W. Evert Meulie wrote: Hi all, I have been looking at various alternatives for a system that runs several Linux Windows guests. So far my favorite choice would be OpenSolaris+ZFS+RAIDZ+VirtualBox. Is this combo ready to be a host for Linux Windows guests? Or is it not 100% stable (yet)? Greetings, Evert This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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] Pool setup suggestions
OK, as nobody seemed to have a better solution I decided to stay with my initial idea (two mirror sets) with a slight change. Instead of using UFS slices for the root swap filesystems I installed to whole system on zfs pool. 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] OpenSolaris+ZFS+RAIDZ+VirtualBox - ready for production systems?
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Evert Meulie wrote: I have been looking at various alternatives for a system that runs several Linux Windows guests. So far my favorite choice would be OpenSolaris+ZFS+RAIDZ+VirtualBox. Is this combo ready to be a host for Linux Windows guests? Or is it not 100% stable (yet)? The future looks quite good, but my impression is that the current VirtualBox release is not well ported to Solaris yet. It is useful for mouse and keyboard access, and is able to use the network as a client. Some other features (e.g. USB, local filesystem access) don't work right yet. Time sychronization between host and guest is not as tight as it should be so if you are using VirtualBox for software development you may see complaints about 'time skew' and possibly bad build from GNU make. As someone else mentioned, VirtualBox only runs 32-bit OSs with up to 2GB of RAM for the guest OS. My testing here shows that performance is pretty good as long as your host has plenty of RAM. Since this seems to be the ZFS list, it is worth mentioning that the since the VirtualBox guest extensions are not working so well on Solaris yet, that a local NFS mount of an exported ZFS filesystem works great to access local files, with good performance. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod
I installed solaris express developer edition (b79) on a supermicro quad-core harpertown E5405 with 8 GB ram and two internal sata-drives. I installed solaris onto one of the internal drives. I added an areca arc-1680 sas-controller and configured it in jbod-mode. I attached an external sas-cabinet with 16 sas-drives 1 TB (931 binary GB). I created a raidz2-pool with ten disks and one spare. I then copied some 400 GB of small files each approx. 1 MB. To simulate a disk-crash I pulled one disk out of the cabinet and zfs faulted the drive and used the spare and started a resilver. During the resilver-process one of the remaining disks had a checksum-error and was marked as degraded. The zpool is now unavailable. I first tried to add another spare but got I/O-error. I then tried to replace the degraded disk by adding a new one: # zpool add ef1 c3t1d3p0 cannot open '/dev/dsk/c3t1d3p0': I/O error Partial dmesg: Jul 25 13:14:00 malene arcmsr: [ID 419778 kern.notice] arcmsr0: scsi id=1 lun=3 ccb='0xff02e0ca0800' outstanding command timeout Jul 25 13:14:00 malene arcmsr: [ID 610198 kern.notice] arcmsr0: scsi id=1 lun=3 fatal error on target, device was gone Jul 25 13:14:00 malene arcmsr: [ID 658202 kern.warning] WARNING: arcmsr0: tran reset level=1 Is this a deficiency in the arcmsr-driver? I beleive I have found the problem. I tried to define a raid-5-volume on the arc-1680-card and still saw errors as mentioned above. Areca-support suggested that I upgraded to the lastest solaris-drivers (located in the beta-folder) and upgraded firmware as well. I did both and it somewhat solved my problems but I had very poor write-performance, 2-6 MB/s. So I deleted my zpool and changed the arc-1680-configuration and put all disks in passthrough-mode. I created a new zpool and performed similar tests and have not experienced any abnormal behaviour. I'm re-installing the server with FreeBSD and will do similar tests and report back. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool import not working - I broke my pool...
Ross Smith wrote: Just a thought, before I go and wipe this zpool, is there any way to manually recreate the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache file? Do you have a copy in a snapshot? ZFS for root is awesome! -- richard Ross Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:42:43 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool import not working - I broke my pool... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Richard Elling wrote: Ross wrote: I'm trying to import a pool I just exported but I can't, even -f doesn't help. Every time I try I'm getting an error: cannot import 'rc-pool': one or more devices is currently unavailable Now I suspect the reason it's not happy is that the pool used to have a ZIL :) Correct. What you want is CR 6707530, log device failure needs some work http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6707530 which Neil has been working on, scheduled for b96. Actually no. That CR mentioned the problem and talks about splitting out the bug, as it's really a separate problem. I've just done that and here's the new CR which probably won't be visible immediately to you: 6733267 Allow a pool to be imported with a missing slog Here's the Description: --- This CR is being broken out from 6707530 log device failure needs some work When Separate Intent logs (slogs) were designed they were given equal status in the pool device tree. This was because they can contain committed changes to the pool. So if one is missing it is assumed to be important to the integrity of the application(s) that wanted the data committed synchronously, and thus a pool cannot be imported with a missing slog. However, we do allow a pool to be missing a slog on boot up if it's in the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache file. So this sends a mixed message. We should allow a pool to be imported without a slog if -f is used and to not import without -f but perhaps with a better error message. It's the guidsum check that actually rejects imports with missing devices. We could have a separate guidsum for the main pool devices (non slog/cache). --- Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone Try it Now! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571435/direct/01/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool import not working - I broke my pool...
No, but that's a great idea! I'm on a UFS root at the moment, will have a look at using ZFS next time I re-install. Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:59:35 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool import not working - I broke my pool... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Ross Smith wrote: Just a thought, before I go and wipe this zpool, is there any way to manually recreate the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache file? Do you have a copy in a snapshot? ZFS for root is awesome! -- richard Ross Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:42:43 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool import not working - I broke my pool... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Richard Elling wrote: Ross wrote:I'm trying to import a pool I just exported but I can't, even -f doesn't help. Every time I try I'm getting an error: cannot import 'rc-pool': one or more devices is currently unavailable Now I suspect the reason it's not happy is that the pool used to have a ZIL :) Correct. What you want is CR 6707530, log device failure needs some work http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6707530which Neil has been working on, scheduled for b96. Actually no. That CR mentioned the problem and talks about splitting out the bug, as it's really a separate problem. I've just done that and here's the new CR which probably won't be visible immediately to you: 6733267 Allow a pool to be imported with a missing slog Here's the Description: --- This CR is being broken out from 6707530 log device failure needs some work When Separate Intent logs (slogs) were designed they were given equal status in the pool device tree. This was because they can contain committed changes to the pool. So if one is missing it is assumed to be important to the integrity of the application(s) that wanted the data committed synchronously, and thus a pool cannot be imported with a missing slog. However, we do allow a pool to be missing a slog on boot up if it's in the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache file. So this sends a mixed message. We should allow a pool to be imported without a slog if -f is used and to not import without -f but perhaps with a better error message. It's the guidsum check that actually rejects imports with missing devices. We could have a separate guidsum for the main pool devices (non slog/cache). --- Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone Try it Now! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571435/direct/01/ _ Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571435/direct/01/___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Supermicro AOC-USAS-L8i
re == Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: re This was fixed some months ago, and it should be hard to find re the old B2 chips anymore (not many were made or sold). -- well, they all ended up on newegg. :) pgpSasiHxNZEB.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris+ZFS+RAIDZ+VirtualBox - ready for production systems?
em == Evert Meulie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: em OpenSolaris+ZFS+RAIDZ+VirtualBox. I'm using snv b83 + ZFS-unredundant + 32bit CPU + VirtualBox. It's stable, but not all the features like USB and RDP are working for me. Also it is being actively developed, so that's good. I'm planning to build a bigger one. I cannot vouch for its memory- or cpu-efficiency. It is probably fine, but mine is not a situation where I swapped it into the place of another virtualization stack so I could compare the performance to a system widely known to perform reasonably---you'll have to do that. Also VirtualBox does not make easy certain things I'd like to be doing, like bridged networking and importing virtual disks from ZVol's instead of big files on ZFS filesystems. I think it's possible to do these things, though. stability is really perfect. I've had some problems running out of host memory, and that's it. While VirtualBox has ``flat'' and ``sparse'' image formats like VMWare, the VMWare ``flat'' format is a pair of files, a small one that points to the big one, and the bigger of the two files is a headerless image you could mount on the host with lofiadm. The VirtualBox ``flat'' images are single files and have headers on them. The headers are a round number of sectors. It's possible to mount the images with Mac OS X hdiutil, but AFAIK not with lofiadm. http://web.ivy.net/~carton/rant/virtualbox-macos-hdiutil.html The ZFS snapshots are, for me, a lot faster (to merge/destroy), safer, and more featureful (can make a tree with branches, not only a straight line (VirtualBox) or a single snapshot (VMWare)) than the ones built into VMWare Server, VMWare Fusion, or VirtualBox. not sure how they compare to the serious $0 VMWare stuff. pgpAWeJpC80oT.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] help me....
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Rahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi can you give some disadvantages of the ZFS file system?? Stay away from the yellow one. plzz its urgent... I understand. help me. Next! Regards, -- Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc,Plano,TX [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot mirror
I took the brute force approach, but it was simple and passed the boot from either test: install on both, then mirror s0, and I'm reasonably confident identical disks will look the same ;-) 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 boot mirror
Richard Elling wrote: Malachi de Ælfweald wrote: I have to say, looking at that confuses me a little. How can the two disks be mirrored when the partition tables don't match? Welcome to ZFS! In traditional disk mirrors, disk A block 0 == disk B block 0 disk A block 1 == disk B block 1 ... disk A block N == disk B block N In a ZFS world, block 1 might be defective. So ZFS will reallocate the block somewhere else. This is great for reliable storage on unreliable devices (disks). It also relieves you from the expectation that the partition tables must match. And it also means that I can grow the pool size by replacing the mirror sides with larger devices. Life is good! Enjoy! This functionality is not specific to ZFS. SVM mirroring also does not require partition tables to match and as in ZFS, one can grow the size of mirror by replacing larger size disks. -Sanjay -- richard ___ 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
[zfs-discuss] Checksum error: which of my files have failed scrubbing?
ZFS has detected that my root filesystem has a small number of errors. Is there a way to tell which specific files have been corrupted? sbox:~$ zpool status -x pool: rpool state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected. action: Determine if the device needs to be replaced, and clear the errors using 'zpool clear' or replace the device with 'zpool replace'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-9P scrub: scrub completed after 0h10m with 2 errors on Sun Aug 3 00:16:33 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool ONLINE 0 0 4 c4t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 4 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] Checksum error: which of my files have failed scrubbing?
soren wrote: ZFS has detected that my root filesystem has a small number of errors. Is there a way to tell which specific files have been corrupted? After a scrub a zpool status -v should give you a list of files with unrecoverable errors. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Checksum error: which of my files have failed scrubbing?
soren wrote: ZFS has detected that my root filesystem has a small number of errors. Is there a way to tell which specific files have been corrupted? After a scrub a zpool status -v should give you a list of files with unrecoverable errors. Hmm, I just tried that. Perhaps No known data errors means that my files are OK. In that case I wonder what the checksum failure was from. sbox:~$ zpool status -xv pool: rpool state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected. action: Determine if the device needs to be replaced, and clear the errors using 'zpool clear' or replace the device with 'zpool replace'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-9P scrub: scrub completed after 0h10m with 2 errors on Sun Aug 3 00:16:33 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool ONLINE 0 0 4 c4t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 4 errors: No known data errors 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] Checksum error: which of my files have failed scrubbing?
Possibly metadata. Since that's however redundant due to ditto blocks (2 or 3 copies depending on importance), it was repaired during the scrub. -- Via iPhone 3G On 05-août-08, at 21:11, soren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: soren wrote: ZFS has detected that my root filesystem has a small number of errors. Is there a way to tell which specific files have been corrupted? After a scrub a zpool status -v should give you a list of files with unrecoverable errors. Hmm, I just tried that. Perhaps No known data errors means that my files are OK. In that case I wonder what the checksum failure was from. sbox:~$ zpool status -xv pool: rpool state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected. action: Determine if the device needs to be replaced, and clear the errors using 'zpool clear' or replace the device with 'zpool replace'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-9P scrub: scrub completed after 0h10m with 2 errors on Sun Aug 3 00:16:33 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool ONLINE 0 0 4 c4t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 4 errors: No known data errors This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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] Checksum error: which of my files have failed scrubbing?
Soren, At this point, I'd like to know what fmdump -eV says about your disk so you can determine whether it should be replaced or not. Cindy soren wrote: soren wrote: ZFS has detected that my root filesystem has a small number of errors. Is there a way to tell which specific files have been corrupted? After a scrub a zpool status -v should give you a list of files with unrecoverable errors. Hmm, I just tried that. Perhaps No known data errors means that my files are OK. In that case I wonder what the checksum failure was from. sbox:~$ zpool status -xv pool: rpool state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected. action: Determine if the device needs to be replaced, and clear the errors using 'zpool clear' or replace the device with 'zpool replace'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-9P scrub: scrub completed after 0h10m with 2 errors on Sun Aug 3 00:16:33 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool ONLINE 0 0 4 c4t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 4 errors: No known data errors This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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
[zfs-discuss] Block unification in ZFS
Hello list. I have a storage server running ZFS which primarily is used for storing on-site mirrors of source trees and interesting sites (textfiles.com and bitsavers.org, for example) and for backups of local machines. There are several (small) problems with the otherwise ideal picture: - Some mirrors include sparse or slightly stale copies of others. - Not all of the local machines are always networked (laptops), and their backups tend to have duplicated data wrt the rest of the system. - My pre-ZFS backup tarballs are in a similar state. Therefore, I wonder if something like block unification (which seems to be an old idea, though I know of it primarily through Venti[1]) would be useful to ZFS. Since ZFS checksums all of the data passing through it, it seems natural to hook those checksums and have a hash table from checksum to block pointer. It would seem that one could write a shim vdev which used the ZAP and a host vdev to store this hash table and could inform the higher layers that, when writing a block, that they should simply alias an earlier block (and increment its reference count -- already there for snapshots -- appropriately; naturally if the block's reference count becomes zero, its checksum should be deleted from the hash). The only (slight) complications that leap to mind are: 1. Strictly accounting for used space becomes a little more funny. 2. ZFS wide block pointers (ditto blocks) would have to somehow bypass block unification or risk missing the point. As far as I understand ZFS's on disk structures[2], though, this is not a problem: one copy of the wide block could be stored in the unified vdev and the other two could simply be stored directly in the host vdev. 3. It's possible such an algorithm would miss identical blocks checksummed under different schemes. I think I'm OK with that. 4. Relatedly, one may want to expose a check before unifying option for those who are sufficiently paranoid to fear hash collisions deleting data. Thoughts? Is something like this already possible and I just don't know about it? :) --nwf; [1] http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/venti.html [2] I'm aware of http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/ondiskformat0822.pdf but if there's a more recent version available or if I've grossly mistook something therein, please let me know. P.S. This message is sent via opensolaris.org; I originally sent a slightly earlier version via SMTP and received a notice that a moderator would look at it, however that copy seems to have gotten lost. 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] Checksum error: which of my files have failed scrubbing?
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 12:11 -0700, soren wrote: soren wrote: ZFS has detected that my root filesystem has a small number of errors. Is there a way to tell which specific files have been corrupted? After a scrub a zpool status -v should give you a list of files with unrecoverable errors. Hmm, I just tried that. Perhaps No known data errors means that my files are OK. In that case I wonder what the checksum failure was from. If this is build 94 and you have one or more unmounted filesystems, (such as alternate boot environments), these errors are false positives. There is no actual error; the scrubber misinterpreted the end of an intent log block chain as a checksum error. the bug id is: 6727872 zpool scrub: reports checksum errors for pool with zfs and unplayed ZIL This bug is fixed in build 95. One workaround is to mount the filesystems and then unmount them to apply the intent log changes. - Bill ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Checksum error: which of my files have failed scrubbing?
Aha, that's the problem. I just upgraded to build 94, and I have alternate boot environments. === Hmm, I just tried that. Perhaps No known data errors means that my files are OK. In that case I wonder what the checksum failure was from. If this is build 94 and you have one or more unmounted filesystems, (such as alternate boot environments), these errors are false positives. There is no actual error; the scrubber misinterpreted the end of an intent log block chain as a checksum error. the bug id is: 6727872 zpool scrub: reports checksum errors for pool with zfs and unplayed ZIL This bug is fixed in build 95. One workaround is to mount the filesystems and then unmount them to apply the intent log changes. - Bill This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] force a reset/reinheit zfs acls?
Hello All! Is there a command to force a re-inheritance/reset of ACLs? e.g., if i have a directory full of folders that have been created with inherited ACLs, and i want to change the ACLs on the parent folder, how can i force a reapply of all ACLs? 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] evaluate ZFS ACL
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote: This is not the POSIX access() call which only has 2 parameters. Yes, I'm aware of that; it was meant to be an example of something I wished existed :). -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | [EMAIL PROTECTED] California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] force a reset/reinheit zfs acls?
Rob wrote: Hello All! Is there a command to force a re-inheritance/reset of ACLs? e.g., if i have a directory full of folders that have been created with inherited ACLs, and i want to change the ACLs on the parent folder, how can i force a reapply of all ACLs? There isn't an easy way to do exactly what you want. You could use a chmod in the directory and reapply the ACL to each child of the directory. # chmod Awhatever path... or # chmod -R Awhatever path... If you want to remove all of the ACLs then # chmod -R A- path P.S. If your using a build older than snv_95 then you will get errors if you attempt to set inheritance flags on files. That problem has been fixed in snv_95. -Mark ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Supermicro AOC-USAS-L8i
Well, just an update I suppose since there are people waiting fora review on this card. I bought the card shortly after my last post and it has been sitting in the box for the last 3 weeks or so on my desk. The reason being is because the LSI IPASS to 4 sata cables I ordered along with the card are backordered and they are expected to ship them to me on the 11th to finish the order.So basically, I haven't bothered doing anything with the card since I don't have any SAS drives to test with. As soon as the cables come in I'll let you guys know if anything comes up good or bad. Did anyone else give the card a shot yet? I'm running 2008.05 as my home NAS box and have been quite happy. I'm going to use some t5700 thin clients with it too since the Processor usage on the storage server is so low. 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] force a reset/reinheit zfs acls?
Rob wrote: Hello All! Is there a command to force a re-inheritance/reset of ACLs? e.g., if i have a directory full of folders that have been created with inherited ACLs, and i want to change the ACLs on the parent folder, how can i force a reapply of all ACLs? There isn't an easy way to do exactly what you want. That's unfortunate :( How do I go about requesting a feature like this? 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] Block unification in ZFS
I was just thinking of a similar feature request: one of the things I'm doing is hosting vm's. I build a base vm with standard setup in a dedicated filesystem, then when I need a new instance zfs clone and voila! ready to start tweaking for the needs of the new instance, using a fraction of the space. Until update time. It still saves space, but it would be nice if there were a way to identify the common blocks. I realize it's a double whammy because vms just look like big monolithic files to the base filesystem, whereas normally you might simply look for identical files to map together (though the regular clone mechanism seems to be block based), but something to think about in the nice to haves... 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] Block unification in ZFS
Therefore, I wonder if something like block unification (which seems to be an old idea, though I know of it primarily through Venti[1]) would be useful to ZFS. Since ZFS checksums all of the data passing through it, it seems natural to hook those checksums and have a hash table from checksum to block pointer. It would seem that one could write a shim vdev which used the ZAP and a host vdev to store this hash table and could inform the higher layers that, when writing a block, that they should simply alias an earlier block (and increment its reference count -- already there for snapshots -- appropriately; naturally if the block's reference count becomes zero, its checksum should be deleted from the hash). De duplication has been discussed many times, but it is not trivial to implement. There are no reference counts for blocks.Blocks have a time stamp that is compared to the creation time of snapshots to work out if it can be freed when you destroy a snapshot. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Block unification in ZFS
See the long thread titled ZFS deduplication, last active approximately 2 weeks ago. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] force a reset/reinheit zfs acls?
Rob wrote: Rob wrote: Hello All! Is there a command to force a re-inheritance/reset of ACLs? e.g., if i have a directory full of folders that have been created with inherited ACLs, and i want to change the ACLs on the parent folder, how can i force a reapply of all ACLs? There isn't an easy way to do exactly what you want. That's unfortunate :( How do I go about requesting a feature like this? You can open an RFE via: http://www.opensolaris.org/bug/report.jspa -Mark ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS cache flushes and 6540 disk array - fixed
Hello zfs-discuss,
I've just did a quick test on scsi cache flushes performance impact on
6540 disk array when using ZFS.
The configuration is: v490, S10U5 (137111-03), 2x 6540 disk
arrays with 7.10.25.10 firmware, host is dual ported. ZFS does
mirroring between 6540s. There is no other load on 6540 except for
these testing. Each LUN is a RAID-10 made of many disks on each 6540
(doesn't really matter).
zpool status dslrp
pool: dslrp
state: ONLINE
scrub: scrub completed with 0 errors on Tue Aug 5 10:49:28 2008
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
dslrp ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0 0 0
c6t600A0B800029B7464245486B68EBd0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c6t600A0B800029AF006CCC486B36ABd0 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
I wrote a simple C program to perform in a loop (N times) creation of
a file with O_DSYNC flag (synchronous writes), writing 255 bytes of
data, closing file and removing it. Then I measured total execution
time while disabling or enabling scsi cache flushes in zfs. The source
code for the program is attached at the end of this post.
# echo zfs_nocacheflush/D | mdb -k
zfs_nocacheflush:
zfs_nocacheflush: 1
# ptime ./filesync-1 /dslrp/test/ 10
Time in seconds to create and unlink 10 files with O_DSYNC: 44.947136
real 44.950
user0.349
sys18.188
# dtrace -n fbt::*SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE*:entry'[EMAIL PROTECTED]();}' -n
tick-1s'{printa(@);clear(@);}'
[not a single synchronize which is expected]
# iostat -xnzC 1
[...]
extended device statistics
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 4297.00.0 17236.1 0.0 1.00.00.2 0 98 c6
0.0 2149.50.0 8622.0 0.0 0.50.00.2 0 50
c6t600A0B800029AF006CCC486B36ABd0
0.0 2147.50.0 8614.0 0.0 0.50.00.2 1 49
c6t600A0B800029B7464245486B68EBd0
extended device statistics
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 3892.90.0 15571.7 0.0 1.00.00.3 0 98 c6
0.0 1946.00.0 7783.9 0.0 0.60.00.3 0 57
c6t600A0B800029AF006CCC486B36ABd0
0.0 1947.00.0 7787.9 0.0 0.40.00.2 0 41
c6t600A0B800029B7464245486B68EBd0
extended device statistics
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 4548.10.0 18192.3 0.0 1.00.00.2 0 97 c6
0.0 2274.00.0 9096.2 0.0 0.50.00.2 0 51
c6t600A0B800029AF006CCC486B36ABd0
0.0 2274.00.0 9096.2 0.0 0.50.00.2 1 46
c6t600A0B800029B7464245486B68EBd0
extended device statistics
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 4632.80.0 18620.4 0.0 1.10.00.2 0 99 c6
0.0 2316.90.0 9310.2 0.0 0.50.00.2 1 47
c6t600A0B800029AF006CCC486B36ABd0
0.0 2315.90.0 9310.2 0.0 0.60.00.2 1 52
c6t600A0B800029B7464245486B68EBd0
extended device statistics
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 4610.20.0 18150.6 0.0 1.00.00.2 0 97 c6
0.0 2304.10.0 9075.3 0.0 0.50.00.2 0 52
c6t600A0B800029AF006CCC486B36ABd0
0.0 2306.10.0 9075.3 0.0 0.50.00.2 1 45
c6t600A0B800029B7464245486B68EBd0
[...]
Now lets repeat the same test but with ZFS sending scsi flushes.
# echo zfs_nocacheflush/W0 | mdb -kw
zfs_nocacheflush: 0x1 = 0x0
# ptime ./filesync-1 /dslrp/test/ 10
Time in seconds to create and unlink 10 files with O_DSYNC: 53.809971
real 53.813
user0.351
sys22.107
# dtrace -n fbt::*SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE*:entry'[EMAIL PROTECTED]();}' -n
tick-1s'{printa(@);clear(@);}'
[...]
CPU IDFUNCTION:NAME
3 93193 :tick-1s
6000
3 93193 :tick-1s
7244
3 93193 :tick-1s
6172
3 93193 :tick-1s
7172
[...]
So now we are sending thousands of cache flushes per second as
expected.
# iostat -xnzC 1
[...]
extended device statistics
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 8386.60.0 17050.2 0.0 1.00.00.1 0 84 c6
0.0 4191.30.0 8525.1 0.0 0.50.00.1 0 43
c6t600A0B800029AF006CCC486B36ABd0
0.0 4195.30.0 8525.1 0.0 0.50.00.1 0 41
c6t600A0B800029B7464245486B68EBd0
extended device statistics
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 7476.50.0
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool i/o error
I found out what was my problem. It's hardware related. My two disks where on a SCSI channel that didn't work properly. It wasn't a ZFS problem. Thank you everybody who replied. My Bad. 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] Block unification in ZFS
Alan alan at peak.org writes: I was just thinking of a similar feature request: one of the things I'm doing is hosting vm's. I build a base vm with standard setup in a dedicated filesystem, then when I need a new instance zfs clone and voila! ready to start tweaking for the needs of the new instance, using a fraction of the space. This is OT but FYI some virtualization apps have built-in support for exactly what you want, you can create disk images that share identical blocks between themselves. In Qemu/KVM this feature copy-on-write disk images: $ qemu-img create -b base_image -f qcow2 new_image In Microsoft Virtual Server, there is also an equivalent feature but I can't recall how it is called. -marc ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot mirror
So I spent some time trying to get the 2nd slice up on the 2nd disk... I did manage to finally get it on there by saving the partition table to format.dat and reformatting the 2nd disk using it, but as soon as I did the zpool attach, it wiped out the slice 2 again. I also tried the prtvtoc and fmthard after attaching, but that didn't work either. Is there some specific steps I can follow to get the 2nd slice to stay on post-attach? Thanks, Malachi On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 6:00 AM, andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I've put up some screenshots and a copy of my menu.lst to clarify my setup: http://sites.google.com/site/solarium/zfs-screenshots Cheers Andrew. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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] ZFS boot mirror
Ok, here's the end results... zfs attach rpool c5t0d0s0 c5t1d0s0: removes c5t1d0s2 zfs attach rpool c5t0d0s2 c5t1d0s2: says c5t0d0s2 is not in the pool zfs attach rpool c5t0d0s0 c5t1d0s2: says I have to force it because s0 and s2 overlap zfs attach -f rpool c5t0d0s0 c5t1d0s2: partition table now matches - onto next step installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c5t1d0s2 raw device must be a root slice (not s2) installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c5t1d0s0 stage1 written to partition 0 sector 0 (abs 16065) stage2 written to partition 0, 260 sectors starting at 50 (abs 16115) I *think* this means it is good to go? What is the easiest way to test it? Malachi On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Ellis, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yep... when you're source pool is a slice, you better add a slice as a target pool if you want to have that slice on the target side remain. should work fine that way, -- MikeE -- *From:* Malachi de Ælfweald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:11 AM *To:* Ellis, Mike *Subject:* Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot mirror Hmmm. I tried c5t1d0 which gave an error and c5t1d0s0 which is what overwrote it. Maybe I should try mirroring c5t0d0s0 to c5t1d0s2? On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Ellis, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: did you zpool attach the whole disk or the specific slice you prepared? -- MikeE -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Malachi de Ælfweald *Sent:* Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:42 PM *To:* andrew *Cc:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org *Subject:* Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot mirror So I spent some time trying to get the 2nd slice up on the 2nd disk... I did manage to finally get it on there by saving the partition table to format.dat and reformatting the 2nd disk using it, but as soon as I did the zpool attach, it wiped out the slice 2 again. I also tried the prtvtoc and fmthard after attaching, but that didn't work either. Is there some specific steps I can follow to get the 2nd slice to stay on post-attach? Thanks, Malachi On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 6:00 AM, andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I've put up some screenshots and a copy of my menu.lst to clarify my setup: http://sites.google.com/site/solarium/zfs-screenshots Cheers Andrew. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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] Supermicro AOC-USAS-L8i
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Miles Nordin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bh It should support any AM2/AM2+ dual-core Opteron like the bh 1220, etc. as well as the quad-core stuff. Are you inferring that based on the name/shape of the socket? I don't think that's a fair assumption. I'm basing it on experience, actually. The 165 was a popular for Socket 939 systems since it cost less than the Athlon at the same clock. AMD realized their mistake and now charges more for the Opteron at equal clocks across the board. The boards I looked at, if you go to the taiwanese manufacturer's web site, explicitly list the CPU's they support, and for all the boards I looked at, it's either phenom or opteron, not both---a strict divide between desktop and server. Also the server boards all need registered memory, and the desktops all need unregistered. That's based more on the target market for the board. It's mainly just marketing, though some manufacturers may not add the server CPUIDs to the desktop BIOS. Remember that the memory controller is in the CPU, so it really doesn't matter what the board says. (In fact, the very first desktop Athlon 64 chips were socket 940 and required registered memory.) The current 1-way Opterons are just binned Athlons. If you look at the actual CPU specs (http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/23932.pdf) for the AM2 Opterons it reads: - 144-bit DDR2 SDRAM controller operating at up to 333 MHz - Supports up to four unbuffered DIMMs - ECC checking with double-bit detect and single-bit correct The Socket F chips (2xxx and 8xxx series) require registered memory. The other is requirement for workaround of the BA/B2 stepping TLB bug. Any BIOS that can recognize an Phenom / 3rd-gen Opteron will implement this for the B2 stepping. or something different, but many motherboards needed a BIOS update to boot with a Barcelona chip. Customers were told to install an older AMD chip, upgrade the BIOS, then install the new chip. I would not The BIOS needs to know about the chip. The same thing happened on the Intel side when the 65nm Core 2 came out (E6xxx and Q6xxx), and again with the 45nm Core 2 (E8xxx and Q8xxx). -B -- Brandon High [EMAIL PROTECTED] The good is the enemy of the best. - Nietzsche ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot mirror
Sounds like you've got an EFI label on the second disk. Can you run format, select the second disk, then enter fdisk then print and post the output here? Thanks Andrew. 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 boot mirror
It looks like we finally got it working. The log of what Mike had me do to fix it is herehttp://malsserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/mirroring-resolved-correct-way.htmlin case anyone else runs into this. Thanks to everyone who helped with this. Thanks again! Mal On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:40 PM, andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds like you've got an EFI label on the second disk. Can you run format, select the second disk, then enter fdisk then print and post the output here? Thanks Andrew. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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
