Hi,
I just replaced a drive (c12t5d0 in the listing below). For the first 6
hours of the resilver I saw no issues. However, sometime during the last
hour of the resilver, the new drive and two others in the same RAID-Z2 strip
threw a couple checksum errors. Also, two of the other drives in the
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Jason J. W. Williams
jasonjwwilli...@gmail.com wrote:
Should I be worried about these checksum errors?
Maybe. Your disks, cabling or disk controller is probably having some issue
which caused them. or maybe sunspots are to blame.
Run a scrub often and
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Scott Meilicke
scott.meili...@craneaerospace.com wrote:
Resliver speed has been beaten to death I know, but is there a way to avoid
this? For example, is more enterprisy hardware less susceptible to
reslivers? This box is used for development VMs, but there is
Hi Folks,
Is there any technical difference between using zfs unmount to unmount a ZFS
filesystem versus the standard unix umount command? I always use zfs
unmount but some of my colleagues still just use umount. Is there any reason
to use one over the other?
Thanks.
Doug Linder
--
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Linder, Doug wrote:
Is there any technical difference between using zfs unmount to unmount
a ZFS filesystem versus the standard unix umount command? I always
use zfs unmount but some of my colleagues still just use umount. Is
there any reason to use one over the other?
On 30.09.10 15:42, Mark J Musante wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Linder, Doug wrote:
Is there any technical difference between using zfs unmount to unmount
a ZFS filesystem versus the standard unix umount command? I always use
zfs unmount but some of my colleagues still just use umount. Is there
Michael Schuster [mailto:michael.schus...@oracle.com] wrote:
Mark, I think that wasn't the question, rather, what's the difference
between 'zfs u[n]mount' and '/usr/bin/umount'?
Yes, that was the question. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
Doug Linder
--
Learn more about Merchant Link at
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Darren J Moffat wrote:
* It can be applied recursively down a ZFS hierarchy
True.
* It will unshare the filesystems first
Actually, because we use the zfs command to do the unmount, we end up
doing the unshare on the filesystem first.
See the opensolaris code for
On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:32 AM, Tuomas Leikola wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Scott Meilicke
scott.meili...@craneaerospace.com wrote:
Resliver speed has been beaten to death I know, but is there a way to avoid
this? For example, is more enterprisy hardware less susceptible to
If we've found one bad disk, what are our options?
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:32 AM, Tuomas Leikola wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Scott Meilicke
scott.meili...@craneaerospace.com wrote:
Resliver
Hello,
I have a ZFS filesystem (zpool version 26 on Nexenta CP 3.01) which I'd like to
rollback but it's having an existential crisis.
Here's what I see:
r...@bambi:/# zfs rollback bambi/faline/userd...@autod-2010-09-28
cannot rollback to 'bambi/faline/userd...@autod-2010-09-28': more recent
Thanks Tuomas. I'll run the scrub. It's an aging X4500.
-J
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Tuomas Leikola tuomas.leik...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Jason J. W. Williams
jasonjwwilli...@gmail.com wrote:
Should I be worried about these checksum errors?
Maybe. Your
Hi Ian,
If this is a release prior to b122, you might be running into CR 6860996.
Please see this thread for a possible resolution:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=493866#493866
Thanks,
Cindy
On 09/30/10 09:34, Ian Levesque wrote:
Hello,
I have a ZFS filesystem (zpool
Hi Cindy,
Thanks for your email; I noticed that link before sending this to the list.
Unfortunately, I'm running b134+ and there aren't any clones reported via zdb.
Ian
On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
If this is a release prior to b122, you might be running into CR
I tried to do a zfs root via flash install which was not sucessful later i did
a normal flash installation on my sparc system , but now zpool import shows
following status
zpool import
pool: rootpool
id: 1557419723465062977
state: UNAVAIL
status: The pool is formatted using an
I have an X4500 thumper box with 48x 500gb drives setup in a a pool and split
into raidz2 sets of 8 - 10 drives within the single pool.
I had a failed disk with i cfgadm unconfigured and replaced no problem, but it
wasn't recognised as a Sun drive in Format and unbeknown to me someone else
nw == Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com writes:
nw Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop
nw with Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file
nw perms because there's a mode_t completely out of their
nw reach... they'll be
On 09/22/10 04:27 PM, Ben Miller wrote:
On 09/21/10 09:16 AM, Ben Miller wrote:
I had tried a clear a few times with no luck. I just did a detach and that
did remove the old disk and has now triggered another resilver which
hopefully works. I had tried a remove rather than a detach before,
Hi all
I just tested dedup on this test box running OpenIndiana (147) storing bacula
backups, and did some more testing on some datasets with ISO images. The
results show so far that removing 30GB deduped datasets are done in a matter of
minutes, which is not the case with 134 (which may take
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 02:55:26PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
nw == Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com writes:
nw Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop
nw with Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file
nw perms because there's a
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:28:14PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Consider this chronologically-ordered sequence of events:
1) File is created via Windows, gets SMB/ZFS/NFSv4-style ACL, including
inherittable ACEs. A mode computed from this ACL might be 664, say.
2) A Unix user does
On 30/09/2010 14:49, Linder, Doug wrote:
Michael Schuster [mailto:michael.schus...@oracle.com] wrote:
Mark, I think that wasn't the question, rather, what's the difference
between 'zfs u[n]mount' and '/usr/bin/umount'?
Yes, that was the question. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
The main
Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
no, not under my proposal.
but it sounds like currently people cannot ``fix'' permissions through
the quirky autotranslation anyway, certainly not to the point where
neither unix nor windows users are confused: windows users are always
Can you provide some specifics to see how bad the writes are?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
no, not under my proposal.
Then your proposal is a non-starter. Support for multiple remote
filesystem access protocols is key for ZFS and Solaris.
The impedance
Replace it. Reslivering should not as painful if all your disks are functioning
normally.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
26 matches
Mail list logo
