Re: [zfs-discuss] [OpenIndiana-discuss] Question about ZFS/CIFS
We've migrated from an old samba installation to a new box with openindiana, and it works well, but... It seems Windows now honours the executable bit, so that .exe files for installing packages, are no longer directly executable. While it is positive that windows honours this bit, it breaks things when we have a software repository on this server. Does anyone know a way to counter this without chmod -R o+x? Does setting the aclinherit=passthrough-x zfs property on the filesystem help? I'm not sure, but you may still need to do a chmod -R on each filesystem to set the ACLs on each existing directory. Setting aclinherit didn't help much. It seems +x isn't inherited to files, only dirs. I found new files are created with the correct permissions, so I just chmod +x the lot... Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Wrong rpool used after reinstall!
- Original Message - From: Brian Wilson brian.wil...@doit.wisc.edu To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Cc: Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2011 2:57:26 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Wrong rpool used after reinstall! I'm curious - would it work to boot from a live CD, go to shell, and deport/import/rename the old rpool, then boot normally? Hi Brian, No, it doesn't work. Kernel panic still happens. Most modern boards will be boot from a live USB stick. I think this quote was from Ian. Yes they will, but only Solaris 11 Express and OpenIndiana seem to have USB bootable installers. I installed Solaris 11 this way. You can see from the screen shot I posted the error still occurs. The data is still inaccessible. I was hope somebody from Oracle would say something but I don't see any emails. Jim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Stuart James Whitefish swhitef...@yahoo.com wrote: # zpool import -f tank http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/zfsimportfail.jpg/ I encourage you to open a support case and ask for an escalation on CR 7056738. -- Mike Gerdts Hi Mike, Unfortunately I don't have a support contract. I've been trying to set up a development system on Solaris and learn it. Until this happened, I was pretty happy with it. Even so, I don't have supported hardware so I couldn't buy a contract until I bought another machine and I really have enough machines so I cannot justify the expense right now. And I refuse to believe Oracle would hold people hostage in a situation like this, but I do believe they could generate a lot of goodwill by fixing this for me and whoever else it happened to and telling us what level of Solaris 10 this is fixed at so this doesn't continue happening. It's a pretty serious failure and I'm not the only one who it happened to. It's incredible but in all the years I have been using computers I don't ever recall losing data due to a filesystem or OS issue. That includes DOS, Windows, Linux, etc. I cannot believe ZFS on Intel is so fragile that people lose hundreds of gigs of data and that's just the way it is. There must be a way to recover this data and some advice on preventing it from happening again. Thanks, Jim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS raidz on top of hardware raid0
Suppose I want to build a 100-drive storage system, wondering if there is any disadvantages for me to setup 20 arrays of HW RAID0 (5 drives each), then setup ZFS file system on these 20 virtual drives and configure them as RAIDZ? I understand people always say ZFS doesn't prefer HW RAID. Under this case, the HW RAID0 is only for stripping (allows higher data transfer rate), while the actual RAID5 (i.e. RAIDZ) is done via ZFS which takes care all the checksum/error detection/auto-repair. I guess this will not affect any advantages of using ZFS, while I could get higher data transfer rate. Wondering if it's the case? Any suggestion or comment? Please kindly advise. Thanks! -- 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] Intel 320 as ZIL?
Over provisioning does not directly increase flash performance, but allows for greater reliability as the drive ages by improving garbage collection efforts and reducing write amplification. This article doesn't provide any sources, but it explains the concept at a very basic level - http://thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/optimization-guides/ssd-performance-loss-and-its-solution/ . This thread contains quite a bit of testing and analysis regarding performance of several different SSDs under constant, 100% write workloads. Some of the drives have had close to 300TiB of writes and are still kicking - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?271063-SSD-Write-Endurance-25nm-Vs-34nm. The tests were all conducted under Windows with TRIM, however, so this isn't directly applicable to using a SSD for a ZIL. On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Edward Ned Harvey opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson For ZIL, I suppose we could get the 300GB drive and overcommit to 95%! What kind of benefit does that offer? I suppose, if you have a 300G drive and the OS can only see 30G of it, then the drive can essentially treat all the other 290G as having been TRIM'd implicitly, even if your OS doesn't support TRIM. It is certainly conceivable this could make a big difference. Have you already tested it? Anybody? Or is it still just theoretical performance enhancement, compared to using a normal sized drive in a normal mode? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Sudden drop in disk performance - WD20EURS 4k sectors to blame?
Did you 4k align your partition table and is ashift=12? -- 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] Sudden drop in disk performance - WD20EURS 4k sectors to blame?
David Wragg wrote: I've not done anything different this time from when I created the original (512b) pool. How would I check ashift? For a zpool called export... # zdb export | grep ashift ashift: 12 ^C # As far as I know (although I don't have any WD's), all the current 4k sectorsize hard drives claim to be 512b sectorsize, so if you didn't do anything special, you'll probably have ashift=9. I would look at a zpool iostat -v to see what the IOPS rate is (you may have bottomed out on that), and I would also work out average transfer size (although that alone doesn't necessarily tell you much - a dtrace quantize aggregation would be better). Also check service times on the disks (iostat) to see if there's one which is significantly worse and might be going bad. -- Andrew Gabriel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
may be try the following 1)boot s10u8 cd into single user mode (when boot cdrom, choose Solaris then choose single user mode(6)) 2)when ask to mount rpool just say no 3)mkdir /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2 4)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt1 tank 5)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt2 rpool On 8/15/2011 9:12 AM, Stu Whitefish wrote: On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Stuart James Whitefish swhitef...@yahoo.com wrote: # zpool import -f tank http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/zfsimportfail.jpg/ I encourage you to open a support case and ask for an escalation on CR 7056738. -- Mike Gerdts Hi Mike, Unfortunately I don't have a support contract. I've been trying to set up a development system on Solaris and learn it. Until this happened, I was pretty happy with it. Even so, I don't have supported hardware so I couldn't buy a contract until I bought another machine and I really have enough machines so I cannot justify the expense right now. And I refuse to believe Oracle would hold people hostage in a situation like this, but I do believe they could generate a lot of goodwill by fixing this for me and whoever else it happened to and telling us what level of Solaris 10 this is fixed at so this doesn't continue happening. It's a pretty serious failure and I'm not the only one who it happened to. It's incredible but in all the years I have been using computers I don't ever recall losing data due to a filesystem or OS issue. That includes DOS, Windows, Linux, etc. I cannot believe ZFS on Intel is so fragile that people lose hundreds of gigs of data and that's just the way it is. There must be a way to recover this data and some advice on preventing it from happening again. Thanks, Jim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss attachment: laotsao.vcf___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zpool replace
Help - I've got a bad disk in a zpool and need to replace it. I've got an extra drive that's not being used, although it's still marked like it's in a pool. So I need to get the "xvm" pool destroyed, c0t5d0 marked as available, and replace c0t3d0 with c0t5d0. root@kc-x4450a # zpool status -xv pool: vms state: UNAVAIL status: One or more devices are faulted in response to IO failures. action: Make sure the affected devices are connected, then run 'zpool clear'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-HC scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM vms UNAVAIL 0 3 0 insufficient replicas c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0 UNAVAIL 0 6 0 experienced I/O failures c0t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files: vms:0x5 vms:0xb root@kc-x4450a # zpool replace -f vms c0t3d0 c0t5d0 cannot replace c0t3d0 with c0t5d0: pool I/O is currently suspended root@kc-x4450a # zpool import pool: xvm id: 14176680653869308477 state: DEGRADED status: The pool was last accessed by another system. action: The pool can be imported despite missing or damaged devices. The fault tolerance of the pool may be compromised if imported. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-EY config: xvm DEGRADED mirror-0 DEGRADED c0t4d0 FAULTED corrupted data c0t5d0 ONLINE Thanks! -Doug ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS raidz on top of hardware raid0
D'oh. I shouldn't answer questions first thing Monday morning. I think you test this configuration with and without the underlying hardware RAID. If RAIDZ is the right redundancy level for your workload, you might be pleasantly surprised with a RAIDZ configuration built on the h/w raid array in JBOD mode. http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide cs On 08/15/11 08:41, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Tom, I think you test this configuration with and without the underlying hardware RAID. If RAIDZ is the right redundancy level for your workload, you might be pleasantly surprised. http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide Thanks, Cindy On 08/12/11 19:34, Tom Tang wrote: Suppose I want to build a 100-drive storage system, wondering if there is any disadvantages for me to setup 20 arrays of HW RAID0 (5 drives each), then setup ZFS file system on these 20 virtual drives and configure them as RAIDZ? I understand people always say ZFS doesn't prefer HW RAID. Under this case, the HW RAID0 is only for stripping (allows higher data transfer rate), while the actual RAID5 (i.e. RAIDZ) is done via ZFS which takes care all the checksum/error detection/auto-repair. I guess this will not affect any advantages of using ZFS, while I could get higher data transfer rate. Wondering if it's the case? Any suggestion or comment? Please kindly advise. Thanks! ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
Hi. Thanks I have tried this on update 8 and Sol 11 Express. The import always results in a kernel panic as shown in the picture. I did not try an alternate mountpoint though. Would it make that much difference? - Original Message - From: Hung-Sheng Tsao (Lao Tsao 老曹) Ph.D. laot...@gmail.com To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:06:20 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible! may be try the following 1)boot s10u8 cd into single user mode (when boot cdrom, choose Solaris then choose single user mode(6)) 2)when ask to mount rpool just say no 3)mkdir /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2 4)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt1 tank 5)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt2 rpool On 8/15/2011 9:12 AM, Stu Whitefish wrote: On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Stuart James Whitefish swhitef...@yahoo.com wrote: # zpool import -f tank http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/zfsimportfail.jpg/ I encourage you to open a support case and ask for an escalation on CR 7056738. -- Mike Gerdts Hi Mike, Unfortunately I don't have a support contract. I've been trying to set up a development system on Solaris and learn it. Until this happened, I was pretty happy with it. Even so, I don't have supported hardware so I couldn't buy a contract until I bought another machine and I really have enough machines so I cannot justify the expense right now. And I refuse to believe Oracle would hold people hostage in a situation like this, but I do believe they could generate a lot of goodwill by fixing this for me and whoever else it happened to and telling us what level of Solaris 10 this is fixed at so this doesn't continue happening. It's a pretty serious failure and I'm not the only one who it happened to. It's incredible but in all the years I have been using computers I don't ever recall losing data due to a filesystem or OS issue. That includes DOS, Windows, Linux, etc. I cannot believe ZFS on Intel is so fragile that people lose hundreds of gigs of data and that's just the way it is. There must be a way to recover this data and some advice on preventing it from happening again. Thanks, Jim ___ 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] ZFS raidz on top of hardware raid0
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Tom Tang wrote: Suppose I want to build a 100-drive storage system, wondering if there is any disadvantages for me to setup 20 arrays of HW RAID0 (5 drives each), then setup ZFS file system on these 20 virtual drives and configure them as RAIDZ? The main concern would be resilver times if a drive in one of the HW RAID0's fails. The resilver time would be similar to one huge disk drive since there would not be any useful concurrency. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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] zpool replace
Hi Doug, The vms pool was created in a non-redundant way, so there is no way to get the data off of it unless you can put back the original c0t3d0 disk. If you can still plug in the disk, you can always do a zpool replace on it afterwards. If not, you'll need to restore from backup, preferably to a pool with raidz or mirroring so zfs can repair faults automatically. On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Doug Schwabauer wrote: Help - I've got a bad disk in a zpool and need to replace it. I've got an extra drive that's not being used, although it's still marked like it's in a pool. So I need to get the xvm pool destroyed, c0t5d0 marked as available, and replace c0t3d0 with c0t5d0. root@kc-x4450a # zpool status -xv pool: vms state: UNAVAIL status: One or more devices are faulted in response to IO failures. action: Make sure the affected devices are connected, then run 'zpool clear'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-HC scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM vms UNAVAIL 0 3 0 insufficient replicas c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0 UNAVAIL 0 6 0 experienced I/O failures c0t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files: vms:0x5 vms:0xb root@kc-x4450a # zpool replace -f vms c0t3d0 c0t5d0 cannot replace c0t3d0 with c0t5d0: pool I/O is currently suspended root@kc-x4450a # zpool import pool: xvm id: 14176680653869308477 state: DEGRADED status: The pool was last accessed by another system. action: The pool can be imported despite missing or damaged devices. The fault tolerance of the pool may be compromised if imported. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-EY config: xvm DEGRADED mirror-0 DEGRADED c0t4d0 FAULTED corrupted data c0t5d0 ONLINE Thanks! -Doug Regards, markm___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 06:53:22PM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson For ZIL, I suppose we could get the 300GB drive and overcommit to 95%! What kind of benefit does that offer? I suppose, if you have a 300G drive and the OS can only see 30G of it, then the drive can essentially treat all the other 290G as having been TRIM'd implicitly, even if your OS doesn't support TRIM. It is certainly conceivable this could make a big difference. Perhaps this is it. Pulled the recommendation from Intel's Solid-State Drive 320 Series in Server Storage Applications whitepaper. Section 4.1: A small reduction in an SSD’s usable capacity can provide a large increase in random write performance and endurance. All Intel SSDs have more NAND capacity than what is available for user data. The unused capacity is called spare capacity. This area is reserved for internal operations. The larger the spare capacity, the more efficiently the SSD can perform random write operations and the higher the random write performance. On the Intel SSD 320 Series, the spare capacity reserved at the factory is 7% to 11% (depending on the SKU) of the full NAND capacity. For better random write performance and endurance, the spare capacity can be increased by reducing the usable capacity of the drive; this process is called over-provisioning. Have you already tested it? Anybody? Or is it still just theoretical performance enhancement, compared to using a normal sized drive in a normal mode? Haven't yet tested it, but hope to shortly. Ray ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
On 8/15/2011 11:25 AM, Stu Whitefish wrote: Hi. Thanks I have tried this on update 8 and Sol 11 Express. The import always results in a kernel panic as shown in the picture. I did not try an alternate mountpoint though. Would it make that much difference? try it - Original Message - From: Hung-Sheng Tsao (Lao Tsao 老曹) Ph.D.laot...@gmail.com To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:06:20 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible! may be try the following 1)boot s10u8 cd into single user mode (when boot cdrom, choose Solaris then choose single user mode(6)) 2)when ask to mount rpool just say no 3)mkdir /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2 4)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt1 tank 5)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt2 rpool On 8/15/2011 9:12 AM, Stu Whitefish wrote: On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Stuart James Whitefish swhitef...@yahoo.com wrote: # zpool import -f tank http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/zfsimportfail.jpg/ I encourage you to open a support case and ask for an escalation on CR 7056738. -- Mike Gerdts Hi Mike, Unfortunately I don't have a support contract. I've been trying to set up a development system on Solaris and learn it. Until this happened, I was pretty happy with it. Even so, I don't have supported hardware so I couldn't buy a contract until I bought another machine and I really have enough machines so I cannot justify the expense right now. And I refuse to believe Oracle would hold people hostage in a situation like this, but I do believe they could generate a lot of goodwill by fixing this for me and whoever else it happened to and telling us what level of Solaris 10 this is fixed at so this doesn't continue happening. It's a pretty serious failure and I'm not the only one who it happened to. It's incredible but in all the years I have been using computers I don't ever recall losing data due to a filesystem or OS issue. That includes DOS, Windows, Linux, etc. I cannot believe ZFS on Intel is so fragile that people lose hundreds of gigs of data and that's just the way it is. There must be a way to recover this data and some advice on preventing it from happening again. Thanks, Jim ___ 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 attachment: laotsao.vcf___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 01:10:07PM -0700, Ian Collins wrote: On 08/12/11 08:00 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up significantly by increasing the overprovisioning to 20% (dropping usable capacity to 80%). A log device doesn't have to be larger than a few GB, so that shouldn't be a problem. I've found even low cost SSDs make a huge difference to the NFS write performance of a pool. We've been using the X-25E (SLC-based). It's getting hard to find, and since we're trying to stick to Intel drives (Nexenta certifies them), and Intel doesn't have a new SLC drive available until late September, we're hoping an overprovisioned 320 could fill the gap until then and perform at least as well as the X-25E. The 320 has not yet passed qualification testing at Nexenta. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
Unfortunately this panics the same exact way. Thanks for the suggestion though. - Original Message - From: Hung-Sheng Tsao (Lao Tsao 老曹) Ph.D. laot...@gmail.com To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:06:20 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible! may be try the following 1)boot s10u8 cd into single user mode (when boot cdrom, choose Solaris then choose single user mode(6)) 2)when ask to mount rpool just say no 3)mkdir /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2 4)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt1 tank 5)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt2 rpool ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS raidz on top of hardware raid0
imho, not a good idea, any two hdd in your raid0 fail zpool is dead if possible just do one hdd raid0 then use zfs to do mirror raidz or raidz2 will be the last choice Sent from my iPad Hung-Sheng Tsao ( LaoTsao) Ph.D On Aug 12, 2011, at 21:34, Tom Tang thomps...@supermicro.com wrote: Suppose I want to build a 100-drive storage system, wondering if there is any disadvantages for me to setup 20 arrays of HW RAID0 (5 drives each), then setup ZFS file system on these 20 virtual drives and configure them as RAIDZ? I understand people always say ZFS doesn't prefer HW RAID. Under this case, the HW RAID0 is only for stripping (allows higher data transfer rate), while the actual RAID5 (i.e. RAIDZ) is done via ZFS which takes care all the checksum/error detection/auto-repair. I guess this will not affect any advantages of using ZFS, while I could get higher data transfer rate. Wondering if it's the case? Any suggestion or comment? Please kindly advise. Thanks! -- 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] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
iirc if you use two hdd, you can import the zpool can you try to import -R with only two hdd at time Sent from my iPad Hung-Sheng Tsao ( LaoTsao) Ph.D On Aug 15, 2011, at 13:42, Stu Whitefish swhitef...@yahoo.com wrote: Unfortunately this panics the same exact way. Thanks for the suggestion though. - Original Message - From: Hung-Sheng Tsao (Lao Tsao 老曹) Ph.D. laot...@gmail.com To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:06:20 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible! may be try the following 1)boot s10u8 cd into single user mode (when boot cdrom, choose Solaris then choose single user mode(6)) 2)when ask to mount rpool just say no 3)mkdir /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2 4)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt1 tank 5)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt2 rpool ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
On Mon, August 15, 2011 12:25, Ray Van Dolson wrote: Perhaps this is it. Pulled the recommendation from Intel's Solid-State Drive 320 Series in Server Storage Applications whitepaper. Section 4.1: [...] On the Intel SSD 320 Series, the spare capacity reserved at the factory is 7% to 11% (depending on the SKU) of the full NAND capacity. For better random write performance and endurance, the spare capacity can be increased by reducing the usable capacity of the drive; this process is called over-provisioning. So this is hard-coded at the factory, and one must 'decode' the SKU to determine how much is set aside? Are the different SKU's values documented somewhere? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
I am catching up here and wanted to see if I correctly understand the
chain of events...
1. Install system to pair of mirrored disks (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0),
system works fine
2. add two more disks (c0t0d0s0 c0t1d0s0), create zpool tank, test and
determine these disks are fine
3. copy data to save to rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0)
3. install OS to c0t0d0s0, c0t1d0s0
4. reboot, system still boots from old rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0)
5. change boot device and boot from new OS (c0t0d0s0 c0t1d0s0)
6. cannot import old rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0) with your data
At this point could you still boot from the old rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0) ?
something happens and
7. cannot import old rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0), any attempt causes a
kernel panic, even when booted from different OS versions
Have you been using the same hardware for all of this ?
--
{1-2-3-4-5-6-7-}
Paul Kraus
- Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
- Sound Designer: Frankenstein, A New Musical
(http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=123170297765140)
- Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
- Technical Advisor, RPI Players
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
I'm sorry, I don't understand this suggestion. The pool that won't import is a mirror on two drives. - Original Message - From: LaoTsao laot...@gmail.com To: Stu Whitefish swhitef...@yahoo.com Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 5:50:08 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible! iirc if you use two hdd, you can import the zpool can you try to import -R with only two hdd at time Sent from my iPad Hung-Sheng Tsao ( LaoTsao) Ph.D On Aug 15, 2011, at 13:42, Stu Whitefish swhitef...@yahoo.com wrote: Unfortunately this panics the same exact way. Thanks for the suggestion though. - Original Message - From: Hung-Sheng Tsao (Lao Tsao 老曹) Ph.D. laot...@gmail.com To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:06:20 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible! may be try the following 1)boot s10u8 cd into single user mode (when boot cdrom, choose Solaris then choose single user mode(6)) 2)when ask to mount rpool just say no 3)mkdir /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2 4)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt1 tank 5)zpool import -f -R /tmp/mnt2 rpool ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
In message 1313431448.5331.yahoomail...@web121911.mail.ne1.yahoo.com, Stu Whi tefish writes: I'm sorry, I don't understand this suggestion. The pool that won't import is a mirror on two drives. Disconnect all but the two mirrored drives that you must import and try to import from a S11X LiveUSB. John groenv...@acm.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
Hi Paul, 1. Install system to pair of mirrored disks (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0), system works fine I don't remember at this point which disks were which, but I believe it was 0 and 1 because during the first install there were only 2 drives in the box because I had only 2 drives. 2. add two more disks (c0t0d0s0 c0t1d0s0), create zpool tank, test and determine these disks are fine Again, probably was on disks 2 and 3 but in principle, correct. 3. copy data to save to rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0) I did this in a few steps that probably don't make sense because I had only 2 500G drives at the beginning when I did my install. Later I got two 320G and realized I should have the root pool on the smaller drives. But in the interim, I installed the new pair of 320G and moved a bunch of data onto that pool. After the initial installation when update 8 first came out, what happened next was something like: 1. I created tank mirror on the 2 320G drives and moved data from another system on to the tank. After I verified it was good I rebooted the box and checked again and everything was healthy, all pools were imported and mounted correctly. 2. Then I realized I should install on the 320s and use the 500s for storage so I copied everything I had just put on the 320s (tank) onto the 500s (root). I rebooted again and verified the data on root was good, then I deleted it from tank. 3. I installed a new install on the 320s (formerly tank) 4. I rebooted and it used my old root on the 500s as root, which surprised me but makes sense now because it was created as rpool during the very first install. 5. I rebooted in single user mode and tried to import the new install. It imported fine. 6. I don't know what happened next but I believe after that I rebooted again to see why Solaris didn't choose the new install, the tank pool could not be imported and I got the panic shown in the screenshot. 3. install OS to c0t0d0s0, c0t1d0s0 4. reboot, system still boots from old rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0) Correct. At some point I read you can change the name of the pool so I imported rpool as tank and that much worked. At this point both pools were still good, and now the install was correctly called rpool and my tank was called tank. 5. change boot device and boot from new OS (c0t0d0s0 c0t1d0s0) That was the surprising thing. I had already changed my BIOS to boot from the new pool, but that didn't stop Solaris from using the old install as the root pool, I guess because of the name. I thought originally as long as I specified the correct boot device I wouldn't have any problem, but even taking the old rpool out of the boot sequence and specifying only the newly installed pool as boot devices wasn't enough. 6. cannot import old rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0) with your data At this point could you still boot from the old rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0) ? Yes, I could use the newly installed pool to boot from, or import it from shell in several versions of Solaris/Sol 11, etc. Of course now I cannot, since I have installed so many times over that pool trying to get the other pool imported. something happens and 7. cannot import old rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0), any attempt causes a kernel panic, even when booted from different OS versions Right. I have tried OpenIndiana 151 and Solaris 11 Express (latest from Oracle) several times each as well as 2 new installs of Update 8. Have you been using the same hardware for all of this ? Yes, I have. Thanks for the help, Jim Thanks ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
Given I can boot to single user mode and elect not to import or mount any pools, and that later I can issue an import against only the pool I need, I don't understand how this can help. Still, given that nothing else seems to help I will try this and get back to you tomorrow. Thanks, Jim - Original Message - From: John D Groenveld jdg...@elvis.arl.psu.edu To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 6:12:37 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible! In message 1313431448.5331.yahoomail...@web121911.mail.ne1.yahoo.com, Stu Whi tefish writes: I'm sorry, I don't understand this suggestion. The pool that won't import is a mirror on two drives. Disconnect all but the two mirrored drives that you must import and try to import from a S11X LiveUSB. John groenv...@acm.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] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!
Hello Stu Whitefish and List, On August, 15 2011, 21:17 Stu Whitefish wrote in [1]: 7. cannot import old rpool (c0t2d0s0 c0t3d0s0), any attempt causes a kernel panic, even when booted from different OS versions Right. I have tried OpenIndiana 151 and Solaris 11 Express (latest from Oracle) several times each as well as 2 new installs of Update 8. When I understand you right is your primary interest to recover your data on tank pool. Have you check the way to boot from a Live-DVD, mount your safe place and copy the data on a other machine? -- Best Regards Alexander August, 15 2011 [1] mid:1313435871.14520.yahoomail...@web121919.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote: Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up significantly by increasing the overprovisioning to 20% (dropping usable capacity to 80%). Intel recently added the 311, a small SLC-based drive for use as a temp cache with their Z68 platform. It's limited to 20GB, but it might be a better fit for use as a ZIL than the 320. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:38:36PM -0700, Brandon High wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote: Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up significantly by increasing the overprovisioning to 20% (dropping usable capacity to 80%). Intel recently added the 311, a small SLC-based drive for use as a temp cache with their Z68 platform. It's limited to 20GB, but it might be a better fit for use as a ZIL than the 320. -B Looks interesting... specs around the same as the old X-25E. We have heard however, that Intel will be announcing a true successor to their X-25E line shortly. Ray ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
From: Ray Van Dolson [mailto:rvandol...@esri.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:26 PM On the Intel SSD 320 Series, the spare capacity reserved at the factory is 7% to 11% (depending on the SKU) of the full NAND capacity. For better random write performance and endurance, the spare capacity can be increased by reducing the usable capacity of the drive; this process is called over-provisioning. I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll see the greatest performance when it's more than 50% overprovisioned. (Say, 55% or so). That will guarantee at all times, there's plenty of unused space available, which the drive can do GC on, even though the OS doesn't say anything like TRIM to the drive. Specifically I say over 50% because 8k pages, and 4k blocks. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS not creating devices
I am creating a custom Solaris 11 Express CD used for disaster recovery. I have included the necessary files on the system to run zfs commands without error (no apparent missing libraries or drivers). However, when I create a zvol, the device in /devices and the link to /dev/zvol/dsk/rpool do not exist. In fact /dev/zvol/dsk is completely empty. I am trying to determine what creates the devices and the links in /dev/zvol/dsk. This is a sparc system. I use this command to create my rpool/swap device: # zfs create -b 8k -V 512m rpool/swap I get a zero return code from the command. # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 1.34G 3.55G31K /rpool rpool/ROOT 63K 3.55G32K /rpool/ROOT rpool/ROOT/solaris 31K 3.55G31K /rpool/ROOT/solaris rpool/dump 16K 3.55G16K - rpool/export 841M 3.55G32K /rpool/export rpool/export/home 1.03M 4.37G32K /rpool/export/home rpool/swap 528M 4.07G16K - # ls -l /dev/zvol/dsk total 0 # ls -l /devices/pseudo | grep zfs drwxr-xr-x 2 root sys0 Aug 15 23:16 zfs@0 crw-rw-rw- 1 root sys 161, 0 Aug 12 19:50 zfs@0:zfs Any insight as to how these devices and links get created by zfs would be appreciated. I am pretty sure I must be missing something in the way of a driver or file, but truss did not point out any glaring problems. Thanks David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
