Re: [zfs-discuss] ashift and vdevs
On 24 November 2010 01:40, David Magda wrote: > It's a per-pool property, and currently hard coded to a value of nine > (i.e., 2^9 = 512). On 27 November 2010 14:11, Brandon High wrote: > The ashift is set in the pool when it's created and will persist > through the life of that pool. If you set it at pool creation, it will > stay regardless of OS upgrades. > I beg to differ: $ zdb -C | grep -B1 -a9 "type: 'raidz'" children[0]: type: 'raidz' id: 0 guid: 2697156371937180589 nparity: 1 metaslab_array: 30 metaslab_shift: 37 ashift: 12 asize: 18003469271040 is_log: 0 create_txg: 4 -- children[1]: type: 'raidz' id: 1 guid: 8374290131789411367 nparity: 1 metaslab_array: 28 metaslab_shift: 37 ashift: 12 asize: 18003469271040 is_log: 0 create_txg: 4 -- children[2]: type: 'raidz' id: 2 guid: 7520329545218679233 nparity: 1 metaslab_array: 64 metaslab_shift: 37 ashift: 9 asize: 17998477000704 is_log: 0 create_txg: 42736 For the pool: $ zpool status tank | grep -v d0 pool: tank state: ONLINE scan: resilvered 0 in 0h0m with 0 errors on Thu Nov 25 22:01:52 2010 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-2 ONLINE 0 0 0 I created the pool with the modified binary from http://digitaldj.net/2010/11/03/zfs-zpool-v28-openindiana-b147-4k-drives-and-you/, with just the top two vdevs (Samsung HD204UI's + Seagate LP's; with 512B emulated from 4KiB physical sector drives). It was later expanded using the default (normally installed in SX11) zpool binary, with the third vdev of Hitachi 7200rpm drives (512B native drives). I'm presently trying to confirm this with something like iosnoop, and struggling to isolate which vdev is which. I can confirm that there are 512B reads/writes by zpool-tank (iotop). I'd presume that it's limited to the third (bottom) vdev. Newsflash for the internet: you can have pools with mixed ashifts. This means that you don't need to rebuild your pool from scratch to integrate 4KiB physical sector drives. Please, Oracle, allow users to provide ashift during zpool create and zpool add. Please! ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
LinkedIn Yan Zhu requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn: -- Eric, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Yan Accept invitation from Yan Zhu http://www.linkedin.com/e/gn3nzl-gh5jt1nm-3w/XIBcooO7dGzlKzmXdkBdrKOTPpzdvXHxGrslduJS1Z/blk/I2486593580_2/1BpC5vrmRLoRZcjkkZt5YCpnlOt3RApnhMpmdzgmhxrSNBszYOnP0UdjcVdjoUd399bT1qtPhprAlBbPkOejwNcP4Tej4LrCBxbOYWrSlI/EML_comm_afe/ View invitation from Yan Zhu http://www.linkedin.com/e/gn3nzl-gh5jt1nm-3w/XIBcooO7dGzlKzmXdkBdrKOTPpzdvXHxGrslduJS1Z/blk/I2486593580_2/39vc3wRcPARdzwQcAALqnpPbOYWrSlI/svi/ -- DID YOU KNOW you can conduct a more credible and powerful reference check using LinkedIn? Enter the company name and years of employment or the prospective employee to find their colleagues that are also in your network. This provides you with a more balanced set of feedback to evaluate that new hire. http://www.linkedin.com/e/gn3nzl-gh5jt1nm-3w/rsr/inv-27/ -- (c) 2010, LinkedIn Corporation___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mirrored drive
On Nov 29, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: > OK, I've got a proble I can't solve by myself. I've installed solaris 11 > using just one drive. > Now I want to create a mirror by attached a second one tot the rpool. > However, the first one has NO partition 9 but the second one does. This way > the sizes differ if I create a partiotion 0 (needed because it's a boot > disk).. > > How can I get the second disk look exactly the same like the first? > Or can't that be done. There is a whole section on managing boot disks in the ZFS Admin Guide, worth a look. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SUNWzfsg missing in Solaris 11 express?
Craig Morgan wrote: > The GUI was a plug-in to Sun WebConsole which is/was a Solaris10 > feature ... I would expect some integration of that going forward, but > you'd have to check with Oracle on integration plans. It was a POS anyways, in my opinion. It was really tough to get working and didn't do all that much. My guess is that Oracle is going to dump that and all similar stuff because they want anyone who needs to manage more than a half dozen systems to spend $OBSCENE on the fancy Enterprise Manager suite. It looks like really handy software. When I priced it with them once it took me minutes to stop laughing long enough to tell them that we won't spend more for management software than the hardware itself actually cost, especially PER SYSTEM instead of a site license. -- 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
[zfs-discuss] Resizing ZFS block devices and sbdadm
sbdadm can be used with a regular ZFS file or a ZFS block device. Is there an advatage to using a ZFS block device and exporting it to comstar via sbdadm as opposed to using a file and exporting it? (e.g. performance or manageability?) Also- let's say you have a 5G block device called pool/test You can resize it by doing: zfs set volsize=10G pool/test However if the device was already imported into comstar then stmfadm list-lu -v will still only report the original 5G block size. You can use sbdadm modify-lu -s 10G but I'm not sure if there is a chance you might run into a size difference between ZFS and sbd. i.e.- if I specify 10G in ZFS, and I do an sbdadm modify-lu -s 10G is there any chance they won't align and I'll try to write past the end of the zvol? Thanks in advance- -- 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] zpool does not like iSCSI ?
On Tue, November 30, 2010 14:09, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: >> Bug ID: 6907687 zfs pool is not automatically fixed when disk are >> brought back online or after boot >> >> An IDR patch already exists, but no official patch yet. > > Do you know if these bugs are fixed in Solaris 11 Express ? It says it was fixed in snv_140, and S11E is based on snv_151a, so it should be in: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6907687 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool does not like iSCSI ?
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:18:17AM -0800, Andreas Koppenhoefer wrote: > From Oracle Support we got the following info: > > Bug ID: 6992124 reboot of Sol10 u9 host makes zpool FAULTED when zpool uses > iscsi LUNs > This is a duplicate of: > Bug ID: 6907687 zfs pool is not automatically fixed when disk are brought > back online or after boot > > An IDR patch already exists, but no official patch yet. > Do you know if these bugs are fixed in Solaris 11 Express ? -- Pasi ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Seagate ST32000542AS and ZFS perf
> Not sure where you got this figure from, the "Barracuda Green" > (http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds1720_barracuda_green.pdf) is > a different drive to the one we've been talking about in this thread > (http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_lp.pdf). > I would note that the Seagate 2TB LP has a 0.32% Annualised Failure Rate. > ie, in a given sample (which aren't overheating, etc) 32 from every 10,000 > should fail. I *believe* that the Power On-Hours on the Barra Green is > simply saying that it is designed for 24/7 usage. It's a per year number. I > couldn't imagine them specifying the number of hours before failure like > that, just below an AFR of 0.43. Whoops, yes, that's what I did, I assumed that LP == Green, but I guess that is not the case. I got 2 from the newegg sale, I'll post my impressions once I get them and added to a pool...assuming they survived newegg's rather subpar hard drive packaging process. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
