On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
>> "jd" == Jim Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>jd> If at the time the SNDR replica is deleted the set was
>jd> actively replicating, along with ZFS actively writing to the
>jd> ZFS storage pool, I/O consistency will be lost, l
On 09/17/08 02:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you doing snaps?
No, no snapshots ever.
Logged in as root to do;
zpool replace poolname deaddisk
and then did a few zpool status
as root. It restarted each time.
If so unless you have the new bits to handle the
issue, each snap restarts a
Are you doing snaps? If so unless you have the new bits to handle the
issue, each snap restarts a scrub or resilver.
Thanks!
Wade Stuart
we are fallon
P: 612.758.2660
C: 612.877.0385
** Fallon has moved. Effective May 19, 2008 our address is 901 Marquette
Ave, Suite 2400, Minneapolis, MN 554
Cyril Plisko wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Erik Trimble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Just one more things on this:
>>
>> Run with a 64-bit processor. Don't even think of using a 32-bit one -
>> there are known issues with ZFS not quite properly using 32-bit only
>> structures. Th
> "t" == Tomas Ögren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
t> I recall some issue with 'zpool status' as root restarting
t> resilvering.. Doing it as a regular user will not..
is there an mdb command similar to zpool status? maybe it's safer.
pgp8jYtCisPzr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_
On 17 September, 2008 - Neal Pollack sent me these 0,3K bytes:
> Running Nevada build 95 on an ultra 40.
> Had to replace a drive.
> Resilver in progress, but it looks like each
> time I do a zpool status, the resilver starts over.
> Is this a known issue?
I recall some issue with 'zpool status'
Running Nevada build 95 on an ultra 40.
Had to replace a drive.
Resilver in progress, but it looks like each
time I do a zpool status, the resilver starts over.
Is this a known issue?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.o
> "djm" == Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
djm> If c0t6d0 and c0t7d0 both fail (ie both sides of the same
djm> mirror vdev) then the pool will be unable to retrieve all the
djm> data stored in it.
won't be able to retrieve ANY of the data stored on it. It's correct
as yo
Moore, Joe wrote:
>> I believe the problem you're seeing might be related to deadlock
>> condition (CR 6745310), if you run pstack on the
>> iscsi target daemon you might find a bunch of zombie
>> threads. The fix
>> is putback to snv-99, give snv-99 a try.
>>
>
> Yes, a pstack of the core I
> I believe the problem you're seeing might be related to deadlock
> condition (CR 6745310), if you run pstack on the
> iscsi target daemon you might find a bunch of zombie
> threads. The fix
> is putback to snv-99, give snv-99 a try.
Yes, a pstack of the core I've generated from iscsitgtd does
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> If c0t6d0 and c0t7d0 both fail (ie both sides of the same mirror vdev)
> then the pool will be unable to retrieve all the data stored in it. If
> c0t6d0 and c0t3d0 both fail then there are sufficient replicas of data
> available in that case because it was disks from d
gm_sjo wrote:
> Are you not infact losing performance by reducing the
> amount of spindles used for a given pool?
This depends. Usually, RAIDZ1/2 isn't a good performancer when it comes
to random access read I/O, for instance. If I wanted to scale
performance by adding spindles, I would use mir
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM, gm_sjo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/17 Peter Tribble:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:40 AM, gm_sjo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Am I right in thinking though that for every raidz1/2 vdev, you're
>>> effectively losing the storage of one/two disks in that vde
Francois wrote:
> If 2 disks of a mirror fail do the pool will be faulted ?
>
> NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
> homez ONLINE 0 0 0
>mirrorONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t3d
If 2 disks of a mirror fail do the pool will be faulted ?
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
homez ONLINE 0 0 0
mirrorONLINE 0 0 0
c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
2008/9/17 Peter Tribble:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:40 AM, gm_sjo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Am I right in thinking though that for every raidz1/2 vdev, you're
>> effectively losing the storage of one/two disks in that vdev?
>
> Well yeah - you've got to have some allowance for redundancy.
Thi
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:40 AM, gm_sjo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I right in thinking though that for every raidz1/2 vdev, you're
> effectively losing the storage of one/two disks in that vdev?
Well yeah - you've got to have some allowance for redundancy.
--
-Peter Tribble
http://www.peter
Am I right in thinking though that for every raidz1/2 vdev, you're
effectively losing the storage of one/two disks in that vdev?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
18 matches
Mail list logo
