Re: [zfs-discuss] Any rhyme or reason to disk dev names?
On Dec 21, 2011, at 2:58, "Matthew R. Wilson" wrote: > Can anyone offer any suggestions on a way to predict the device naming, or at > least get the system to list the disks after I insert one without rebooting? You have gotten some good responses that should help you out. However, you shouldn't have to reboot to see the new disks try devfsadm. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Filesystem hang when 100% full
On Jul 24, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > I remember asking about this a long time ago, and everybody seemed to think > it was a non-issue. The vague and unclearly reported rumor that ZFS behaves > poorly when it's 100% full. Well now I have one really solid data point to > confirm it. And possibly how to reproduce it, avoid it, and prevent it. I am given to understand that you can delete snapshots in current builds (I don't have anything recent where I can test). > > I'm looking to see if anyone else has similar or related issues. Of > particular value, if you have any test machine to attempt reproducing the > problem, that could be very valuable. > > > Before there is a problem, create a new zfs filesystem, with a space > reservation. > zfs create -o reservation=1G tank/reservation Yes, this works. You don't need much space to recover what I do is drop the reservation down about 10% from the original size and proceed to free up space. I don't remove the reservation entirely because I use a small reservation (100M) and I don't want to be caught out if something is trying to write and I missed it. Shawn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X clients with ZFS server
On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Rich Teer wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a server running SXCE b130 and I use ZFS for all file systems. I > also have a couple of workstations running the same OS, and all is well. > But I also have a MacBook Pro laptop running Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6.3), > and I have troubles creating files on exported ZFS file systems. > > From the laptop, I can read and write existing files on the exported ZFS > file systems just fine, but I can't create new ones. My understanding is > that Mac OS makes extensive use of file attributes so I was wondering if > this might be the cause of the problem (I know ZFS supports file attributes, > but I wonder if I have to utter some magic incantation to get them working > properly with Mac OS). > > At the moment I have a workaround: I use sftp to copy the files from the > laptop to the server. But this is a pain in the ass and I'm sure there's > a way to make this just work properly! I haven't seen this behavior. However, all of my file systems used by my Mac are pool version 8 fs ver 2. I don't know if that could be part of your problem or not. I am attaching two ways direct attach and iSCSI zvol with pool and FS created locally. Shawn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-raidz - simulate disk failure
I would try using hdadm or cfgadm to specifically offline devices out from under ZFS. I have done that previously with cfgadm for systems I cannot physically access. You can also use file backed storage to create your raidz and move, delete, overwrite the files to simulate issues. Shawn On Nov 23, 2009, at 1:32 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > On Mon, November 23, 2009 11:44, sundeep dhall wrote: >> All, >> >> I have a test environment with 4 internal disks and RAIDZ option. >> >> Q) How do I simulate a sudden 1-disk failure to validate that zfs / raidz >> handles things well without data errors >> >> Options considered >> 1. suddenly pulling a disk out >> 2. using zpool offline > > 3. Use dd to a raw device to corrupt small random parts of the disks > supporting the zpool. > >> I think both these have issues in simulating a sudden failure > > Probably now it's "all three" :-(. > > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ > Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ > Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ > Dragaera: http://dragaera.info > > _______ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Shawn Ferry shawn.ferry at sun.com 571.291.4898 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot delete file when fs 100% full
On Aug 29, 2008, at 7:09 AM, Tomas Ögren wrote: > On 15 August, 2008 - Tomas Ögren sent me these 0,4K bytes: > >> On 14 August, 2008 - Paul Raines sent me these 2,9K bytes: >> >>> This problem is becoming a real pain to us again and I was wondering >>> if there has been in the past few month any known fix or workaround. I had this problem in the past. Fortunately I was able to recover by removing an old snapshot which gave me enough room to deal with my problems. Now, I create a fs called reserved and set a small reservation to ensure that there is a small amount of space available. [sferry<@>noroute(0) 12:59 s001] [6] zfs get reservation,mountpoint,canmount,type noroute/reserved NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE noroute/reserved reservation 50M local noroute/reserved mountpoint none inherited from noroute noroute/reserved canmount off local noroute/reserved type filesystem- If I fill the pool now, I reduce the reservation (reduce instead of remove in case I have something writing uncontrollably to the pool) and clean up. Shawn -- Shawn Ferry shawn.ferry at sun.com Senior Primary Systems Engineer Sun Managed Operations ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Subversion repository on ZFS
On Aug 27, 2008, at 4:38 PM, Tim wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Does anyone have any tuning tips for a Subversion repository on ZFS? The repository will mainly be storing binary (MS Office documents). It looks like a vanilla, uncompressed file system is the best bet. I have a SVN on ZFS repository with ~75K relatively small files and few binaries. That is working well without any special tuning. Shawn -- Shawn Ferry shawn.ferry at sun.com Senior Primary Systems Engineer Sun Managed Operations ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirroring to a smaller disk
On Mar 3, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Jonathan Loran wrote: > > Now I know this is counterculture, but it's biting me in the back side > right now, and ruining my life. > > I have a storage array (iSCSI SAN) that is performing badly, and > requires some upgrades/reconfiguration. I have a second storage array > that I wanted to set up as a ZFS mirror so I could free the bad array > for upgrades. The live array is only 15% utilized. It is 3.82TB in > size. The second array that I setup up is just short of that at > 3.7TB. > Obviously I can't set this up as a mirror, since it's too small. But > given the low utilization, why the heck not? The way ZFS works, there > is no reason why you can't shrink a pool with a smaller mirror in the > same way you could grow it by detaching a mirror to larger storage? > It > may require an export/import or the like, but why not? You can't shrink a pool. > > > What I'm left with now is to do more expensive modifications to the > new > mirror to increase its size, or using zfs send | receive or rsync to > copy the data, and have an extended down time for our users. Yuck! Why do you need extended downtime to use zfs send|recv? I would think that the only outage you would need to take would be on cutover to the new array. The following may help: http://blogs.sun.com/constantin/entry/useful_zfs_snapshot_replicator_script > > > Related to this, if I'm going to generate down time, why don't I just > forget the SAN, and move the whole thing to a NAS solution, using NFS > with Solaris instead on the SAN box? It's just commodity x86 server > hardware. > > My life is ruined by too many choices, and not enough time to evaluate > everything. > > Jon > > -- > > > - _/ _/ / - Jonathan Loran > - - > -/ / /IT > Manager - > - _ / _ / / Space Sciences Laboratory, UC > Berkeley > -/ / / (510) 643-5146 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - __/__/__/ AST:7731^29u18e3 > > > > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Shawn Ferry shawn.ferry at sun.com Senior Primary Systems Engineer Sun Managed Operations 571.291.4898 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS number of file systems scalability
There is a write up of similar findings and more information about sharemgr http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/nfs_zfs.html Unfortunately I don't see anything that says those changes will be in u5. Shawn On Feb 5, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote: > > I was curious to see about how many filesystems one server could > practically serve via NFS, and did a little empirical testing. > > Using an x4100M2 server running S10U4x86, I created a pool from a > slice of > the hardware raid array created from the two internal hard disks, > and set > sharenfs=on for the pool. > > I then created filesystems, 1000 at a time, and timed how long it > took to > create each thousand filesystems, to set sharenfs=off for all > filesystems > created so far, and to set sharenfs=on again for all filesystems. I > understand sharetab optimization is one of the features in the latest > OpenSolaris, so just for fun I tried symlinking /etc/dfs/sharetab to > a mfs > file system to see if it made any difference. I also timed a > complete boot > cycle (from typing 'init 6' until the server was again remotely > available) > at 5000 and 10,000 filesystems. > > Interestingly, filesystem creation itself scaled reasonably well. I > recently read a thread where someone was complaining it took over > eight > minutes to create a filesystem at the 10,000 filesystem count. In my > tests, > while the first 1000 filesystems averaged only a little more than > half a > second each to create, filesystems 9000-1 only took roughly > twice that, > averaging about 1.2 seconds each to create. > > Unsharing scalability wasn't as good, time requirements increasing > by a > factor of six. Having sharetab in mfs made a slight difference, but > nothing > outstanding. Sharing (unsurprisingly) was the least scalable, > increasing by > a factor of eight. > > Boot-wise, the system took about 10.5 minutes to reboot at 5000 > filesystems. This increased to about 35 minutes at the 10,000 file > system > counts. > > Based on these numbers, I don't think I'd want to run more than 5-7 > thousand filesystems per server to avoid extended outages. Given our > user > count, that will probably be 6-10 servers 8-/. I suppose we could > have a > large number of smaller servers rather than a small number of beefier > servers; although that seems less than efficient. It's too bad > there's no > way to fast track backporting of openSolaris improvements to > production > Solaris, from what I've heard there will be virtually no ZFS > improvements > in S10U5 :(. > > Here are the raw numbers for anyone interested. The first column is > number > of file systems. The second column is total and average time in > seconds to > create that block of filesystems (eg, the first 1000 took 589 > seconds to > create, the second 1000 took 709 seconds). The third column is the > time in > seconds to turn off NFS sharing for all filesystems created so far > (eg, 14 > seconds for 1000 filesystems, 38 seconds for 2000 filesystems). The > fourth > is the same operation with sharetab in a memory filesystem (I > stopped this > measurement after 7000 because sharing was starting to take so > long). The > final column is how long it took to turn on NFS sharing for all > filesystems > created so far. > > > #FS create/avgoff/avg off(mfs)/avg on/avg > 1000 589/.59 14/.01 9/.01 32/.03 > 2000 709/.71 38/.02 25/.01 107/.05 > 3000 783/.78 70/.02 50/.02 226/.08 > 4000 836/.84 112/.0383/.02 388/.10 > 5000 968/.97 178/.04124/.02 590/.12 > 6000 930/.93 245/.04 172/.03 861/.14 > 7000 961/.96 319/.05 229/.03 1172/.17 > 8000 1045/1.05 405/.05 1515/.19 > 9000 1098/1.10 500/.06 1902/.21 > 11165/1.17 599/.06 2348/.23 > > > -- > 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 -- Shawn Ferry shawn.ferry at sun.com Senior Primary Systems Engineer Sun Managed Operations 571.291.4898 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] x4500 x2
On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:13 AM, Jorgen Lundman wrote: > > If we were to get two x4500s, with the idea of keeping one as a > passive > standby (serious hardware failure) are there any clever solutions in > doing so? You should take a look at AVS, there are some ZFS and AVS demos online http://opensolaris.org/os/project/avs/ > > We can not use ZFS itself, but rather zpool volumes, with UFS on- > top. I > assume there is no zpool send/recv (although, that would be pretty > neat > if there was!). Doing full rsyncs all the time would probably be slow. > > Would it be possible to do a snapshot, then 10 minutes later, another > snapshot and only rsync the differences? zfs send/recv and the incremental capability may also work for you depending on your needs. > > > Any advice will be appreciated. > > Lund > > > -- > Jorgen Lundman | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) > Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) > Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Shawn Ferry shawn.ferry at sun.com Senior Primary Systems Engineer Sun Managed Operations 571.291.4898 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on OS X port now on macosforge
On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Noël Dellofano wrote: > Yep, these issues are known and I've listed them with explanations on > on our website under "The State of the ZFS on OS X World": > http://zfs.macosforge.org/ > > We're working on them. The Trash and iTunes bugs should be fixed > soon. The "your non-replicated drive just went MIA" panic will take a > little longer as it requires a more complex fix that will need to > involve diskutil and friends while also preserving the integrity of > your pool and all the data therin. I don't have any non-replicated drives so I never ran into this particular issue. The panics when brining devices online were always for mirrors. I realize that I wasn't clear before. Since the by request only 101 and continuing with the 102A release, I have been able to do rude things to the external portion of my mirrors without experiencing a panic. > This is also a problem the Solaris > ZFS team is working on as well, it's just not as common that people > rip out live drives from a Thumper :) That was almost the first thing I did when we got one to play with :) > > > Noel > > On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Shawn Ferry wrote: > >> Noël, >> >> To try and get regular use out of ZFS on OS X I moved all of my >> Music directory a mirrored pool implemented as a slice of my internal >> disk and a FW enclosure. >> >> There are a few issues I see in using ZFS for end user applications >> at the moment. >> >> 1) Trash doesn't work >> You adding files to the trash seems to work but you >> can't empty it without manually going to the .Trashes >> directory and manually removing files >> 2) You can't download new iTunes Store music through iTunes >> iTunes can download podcasts and add new music from >> local files even using the consolidate music option >> 3) It was somewhat prone to causing panics >> mainly bringing devices back online or rudely disconnecting >> them >> 4) once the kext is loaded it appears that any user can perform any >> action e.g. anybody can create or delete a snapshot or a pool >> >> Shawn >> >> On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Noël Dellofano wrote: >> >>>> As soon as I get in to work and can backup my sparsebundle to a >>>> spare >>>> MBP, I'm going to start banging on it. >>> >>> Sweet deal :) >>> >>>> So, do you have all of /Users on zfs, just one account, have you >>>> tried >>>> a FileVaulted account too? Or is that just crazy talk? :-) >>> >>> I currently just have one account, my personal one, to use ZFS. >>> Then >>> I just have another local admin account that uses HFS+ that I don't >>> really use for anything except occasional testing. In my current >>> setup, I created a pool, and I have 2 filesystems in it, one of >>> which >>> is my home directory. Then I just created my account and pointed >>> it >>> to use that directory for my home dir. >>> I haven't experimented with File Vault yet at all, so feel free to >>> have at it. Hopefully when we get encryption for ZFS then we'll be >>> able to just offer it natively that way. >>> >>> Noel >>> >>> >>> On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:17 PM, Joe Block wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for the pointer. I had just checked ADC for a new download >>>> this >>>> morning, actually. >>>> >>>> As soon as I get in to work and can backup my sparsebundle to a >>>> spare >>>> MBP, I'm going to start banging on it. >>>> >>>> So, do you have all of /Users on zfs, just one account, have you >>>> tried >>>> a FileVaulted account too? Or is that just crazy talk? :-) >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2008 2:09 PM, Noël Dellofano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hey everyone, >>>>> >>>>> This is just a quick announcement to say that the ZFS on OS X >>>>> port is >>>>> now posted for your viewing fun at: >>>>> >>>>> http://zfs.macosforge.org/ >>>>> >>>>> The page is also linked off of the ZFS Open Solaris page under >>>>> "ZFS >>>>> Ports": >>>>> http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/porting/ >>>>> >>>>> This page holds the status for the ZFS on OSX port and includes a &g
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on OS X port now on macosforge
Noël, To try and get regular use out of ZFS on OS X I moved all of my Music directory a mirrored pool implemented as a slice of my internal disk and a FW enclosure. There are a few issues I see in using ZFS for end user applications at the moment. 1) Trash doesn't work You adding files to the trash seems to work but you can't empty it without manually going to the .Trashes directory and manually removing files 2) You can't download new iTunes Store music through iTunes iTunes can download podcasts and add new music from local files even using the consolidate music option 3) It was somewhat prone to causing panics mainly bringing devices back online or rudely disconnecting them 4) once the kext is loaded it appears that any user can perform any action e.g. anybody can create or delete a snapshot or a pool Shawn On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Noël Dellofano wrote: >> As soon as I get in to work and can backup my sparsebundle to a spare >> MBP, I'm going to start banging on it. > > Sweet deal :) > >> So, do you have all of /Users on zfs, just one account, have you >> tried >> a FileVaulted account too? Or is that just crazy talk? :-) > > I currently just have one account, my personal one, to use ZFS. Then > I just have another local admin account that uses HFS+ that I don't > really use for anything except occasional testing. In my current > setup, I created a pool, and I have 2 filesystems in it, one of which > is my home directory. Then I just created my account and pointed it > to use that directory for my home dir. > I haven't experimented with File Vault yet at all, so feel free to > have at it. Hopefully when we get encryption for ZFS then we'll be > able to just offer it natively that way. > > Noel > > > On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:17 PM, Joe Block wrote: > >> Thanks for the pointer. I had just checked ADC for a new download >> this >> morning, actually. >> >> As soon as I get in to work and can backup my sparsebundle to a spare >> MBP, I'm going to start banging on it. >> >> So, do you have all of /Users on zfs, just one account, have you >> tried >> a FileVaulted account too? Or is that just crazy talk? :-) >> >> On Jan 8, 2008 2:09 PM, Noël Dellofano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hey everyone, >>> >>> This is just a quick announcement to say that the ZFS on OS X port >>> is >>> now posted for your viewing fun at: >>> >>> http://zfs.macosforge.org/ >>> >>> The page is also linked off of the ZFS Open Solaris page under "ZFS >>> Ports": >>> http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/porting/ >>> >>> This page holds the status for the ZFS on OSX port and includes a >>> small FAQ, some known bugs, announcements, and will include more as >>> time goes on. It also holds the latest source code and binaries >>> that >>> you can download to your hearts content. So if you have a Mac, are >>> running Leopard, and are feeling bleeding edge please try it out. >>> Comments, questions, suggestions and feedback are all very welcome. >>> I also want to point out this is BETA. We're still working on >>> getting >>> some features going, as well as fleshing out issues with Finder, >>> Disk >>> Util, iTunes, and other parts of the system. So when I say >>> bleeding, >>> I'm not kidding :) However I'm excited to say that I'm happily >>> running ZFS as my home directory on my MacBook Pro which is what I >>> work off of every day, and am running weekly snapshots which I 'zfs >>> send' to my external drive. Oh happy day. >>> >>> thanks! >>> Noel Dellofano >>> ___ >>> zfs-discuss mailing list >>> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Macintosh System Administrator >> +1.650.253.7264 >> >> Information is the currency of democracy. >> -Thomas Jefferson > > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Shawn Ferry shawn.ferry at sun.com Senior Primary Systems Engineer Sun Managed Operations 571.291.4898 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:27 AM, Jorgen Lundman wrote: > > > Shawn Ferry wrote: >> Jorgen, >> >> You may want to try running 'bootadm update-archive' >> >> Assuming that your boot-archive problem is an out of date boot- >> archive >> message at boot and/or doing a clean reboot to let the system try to >> write an up to date boot-archive. > > Yeah, it is remembering to do so after something has changed that's > hard. In this case, I had to break the mirror to install OpenSolaris. > (shame that the CD/DVD, and miniroot, doesn't not have md driver). > > It would be tempting to add the bootadm update-archive to the boot > process, as I would rather have it come up half-assed, than not come > up > at all. It is part of the shutdown process, you just need to stop crashing :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.
Jorgen, You may want to try running 'bootadm update-archive' Assuming that your boot-archive problem is an out of date boot-archive message at boot and/or doing a clean reboot to let the system try to write an up to date boot-archive. I would also encourage you to connect the LOM to the network in case you have such issues again, you should be able to recover remotely. Shawn On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:33 PM, Jorgen Lundman wrote: > > NOC staff couldn't reboot it after the quotacheck crash, and I only > just > got around to going to the Datacenter. This time I disabled NFS, and > the rsync that was running, and ran just quotacheck and it completed > successfully. The reason it didn't boot what that damned boot-archive > again. Seriously! > > Anyway, I did get a vmcore from the crash, but maybe it isn't so > interesting. I will continue with the stress testing of UFS on zpool > as > it is the only solution that would be acceptable. Not given up yet, I > have a few more weeks to keep trying. :) > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2345863 Dec 14 09:57 unix.0 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4741623808 Dec 14 10:05 vmcore.0 > > bash-3.00# adb -k unix.0 vmcore.0 > physmem 3f9789 > $c > top_end_sync+0xcb(ff0a5923d000, ff001f175524, b, 0) > ufs_fsync+0x1cb(ff62e757ad80, 1, fffedd6d2020) > fop_fsync+0x51(ff62e757ad80, 1, fffedd6d2020) > rfs3_setattr+0x3a3(ff001f1757c8, ff001f1758b8, > ff1a0d942080, > ff001f175b20, fffedd6d2020) > common_dispatch+0x444(ff001f175b20, ff0a5a4baa80, 2, 4, > f7c7ea78 > , c06003d0) > rfs_dispatch+0x2d(ff001f175b20, ff0a5a4baa80) > svc_getreq+0x1c6(ff0a5a4baa80, fffec7eda6c0) > svc_run+0x171(ff62becb72a0) > svc_do_run+0x85(1) > nfssys+0x748(e, fecf0fc8) > sys_syscall32+0x101() > > > BAD TRAP: type=e (#pf Page fault) rp=ff001f175320 addr=0 > occurred in > module > "" due to a NULL pointer dereference > > > > > > -- > Jorgen Lundman | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) > Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) > Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Shawn Ferry shawn.ferry at sun.com Senior Primary Systems Engineer Sun Managed Operations 571.291.4898 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to properly tell zfs of new GUID after a firmware upgrade changes the IDs
0d0 ONLINE > 0 0 0 >c27t600A0B800032619A093747554A08d0 ONLINE > 0 0 0 > > errors: No known data errors > > (Note that it has self-initiated a resilvering, since in this case the > mirror has been changed by users since the firmware upgrade.) > > The problem that Robert had was that when he initiated an export of > a pool > (called "bgp") it froze for quite some time. The corresponding > "import" > of the same pool took 12 hours to complete. I have not been able to > replicate this myself, but that was the essence of the problem. > > So again, we do NOT want to "zero out" any of our disks, we are not > trying > to forcibly use "replaced" disks. We simply wanted zfs to re-read the > devices under /dev/rdsk and update each pool with the correct disk > targets. > > If you can confirm that a simple export/import is the proper > procedure for > this (followed by a "clear" once the resulting resilvering > finishes), I > would appreciate it. And, if you can postulate what may have caused > the > "freeze" that Robert noticed, that would put our minds at ease. > > > > TIA, > > Any assistance on this would be greatly appreciated and or pointers > on helpful documentation. > > -- > S U N M I C R O S Y S T E M S I N C. > > Jill Manfield - TSE-OS Administration Group > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > phone: (800)USA-4SUN (Reference your case number) > address: 1617 Southwood Drive Nashua,NH 03063 > mailstop: NSH-01- B287 > > OS Support Team 9AM to 6PM EST >Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] x74110 > > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Shawn Ferry shawn.ferry at sun.com Senior Primary Systems Engineer Sun Managed Operations 571.291.4898 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
