Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Dec 20, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: Erik Trimble [mailto:erik.trim...@oracle.com] >> >> We can either (a) change how ZFS does resilvering or (b) repack the >> zpool layouts to avoid the problem in the first place. >> >> In case (a), my vote would be to seriously incr

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Dec 20, 2010, at 7:31 AM, Phil Harman wrote: > On 20/12/2010 13:59, Richard Elling wrote: >> >> On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Phil Harman wrote: >> >>> Why does resilvering take so long in raidz anyway? >>> Because it's broken. There were some changes a while back that made it more >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with different permissions

>From: Darren J Moffat >Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:15 AM >Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with different >permissions > >On 18/12/2010 07:09, Geoff Nordli wrote: >> I am trying to configure a system where I have two different NFS >> shares which point to

Re: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with different permissions

>From: Richard Elling >Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:14 PM >Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with different >permissions > >On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, "Geoff Nordli" wrote: > >>> From: Edward Ned Harvey >>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:25 AM >>> Sub

Re: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with different permissions

On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, "Geoff Nordli" wrote: >> From: Edward Ned Harvey >> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:25 AM >> Subject: RE: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with > different >> permissions >> >>> From: Richard Elling >>> zfs create tank/snapshots z

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

It well may be that different methods are optimal for different use cases. Mechanical disk vs. SSD; mirrored vs. raidz[123]; sparse vs. populated; etc. It would be interesting to read more in this area, if papers are available. I'll have to take a look. ... Or does someone have pointers? Mark

Re: [zfs-discuss] Intermittent ZFS hang

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Robin Axelsson wrote: To conclude this (in case you don't view this message using a monospace font) all drives in the affected storage pool (c9t0d0 - c9t7d0) report 2 Illegal Requests (save c9t3d0 that reports 5 illegal requests). There is one drive (c9t3d0) that looks li

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Mon, Dec 20 at 19:19, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: If there is no correlation between on-disk order of blocks for different disks within the same vdev, then all hope is lost; it's essentially impossible to optimize the resilver/scrub order unless the on-disk order of multiple disks is highly corre

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Erik Trimble > > > In the case of resilvering on a mirrored disk, why not take a snapshot, and > then > > resilver by doing a pure block copy from the snapshot? It would be > sequential, > > So

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

> From: Erik Trimble [mailto:erik.trim...@oracle.com] > > We can either (a) change how ZFS does resilvering or (b) repack the > zpool layouts to avoid the problem in the first place. > > In case (a), my vote would be to seriously increase the number of > in-flight resilver slabs, AND allow for ou

Re: [zfs-discuss] Resilvering - Scrubing whats the different

Hello Erik Trimble and Ian Collins, thx for quick answering. My inexperience is solved and I am glad. -- Best Regards Alexander Dezember, 20 2010 [1] mid:4d0fb4a4.1090...@oracle.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolar

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 12/20/2010 11:56 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote: >> Erik, >> >> just a hypothetical what-if ... >> >> In the case of resilvering on a mirrored disk, why not take a snapshot, and >> then >> resilver by doing a pure block copy from the snapshot

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:27:41 PST Erik Trimble wrote: > > The problem boils down to this: > > When ZFS does a resilver, it walks the METADATA tree to determine what > order to rebuild things from. That means, it resilvers the very first > slab ever written, then the next oldest, etc. The pro

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 12/20/2010 11:56 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote: Erik, just a hypothetical what-if ... In the case of resilvering on a mirrored disk, why not take a snapshot, and then resilver by doing a pure block copy from the snapshot? It would be sequential, so long as the original data was unmodified;

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

Erik, just a hypothetical what-if ... In the case of resilvering on a mirrored disk, why not take a snapshot, and then resilver by doing a pure block copy from the snapshot? It would be sequential, so long as the original data was unmodified; and random access in dealing with the modified

Re: [zfs-discuss] Resilvering - Scrubing whats the different

On 12/20/2010 11:36 AM, Alexander Lesle wrote: Hello All I read this thread Resilver/scrub times? for a few minutes and I have recognize that I dont know the different between Resilvering and Scrubing. Shame on me. :-( I dont find some declarations in the man-pages and I know the command to sta

Re: [zfs-discuss] Resilvering - Scrubing whats the different

On 12/21/10 08:36 AM, Alexander Lesle wrote: Hello All I read this thread Resilver/scrub times? for a few minutes and I have recognize that I dont know the different between Resilvering and Scrubing. Shame on me. :-( Scrubbing is used to check the contents of a pool by reading the data and ve

[zfs-discuss] Resilvering - Scrubing whats the different

Hello All I read this thread Resilver/scrub times? for a few minutes and I have recognize that I dont know the different between Resilvering and Scrubing. Shame on me. :-( I dont find some declarations in the man-pages and I know the command to start scrubing "zpool scrub tank" but what is the co

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 12/20/2010 9:20 AM, Saxon, Will wrote: -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:46 AM To: 'Lanky Doodle'; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-di

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 12/20/2010 9:20 AM, Saxon, Will wrote: -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:46 AM To: 'Lanky Doodle'; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-di

Re: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with different permissions

>From: Edward Ned Harvey >Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:25 AM >Subject: RE: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with different >permissions > >> From: Richard Elling >> >> > zfs create tank/snapshots >> > zfs set sharenfs=on tank/snapshots >> >> "on" by default sets the NFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] AHCI or IDE?

Hello Richard Elling and List, thx for your answer. I have this problems when I want to install and use Nexenta 3.0.4. I have wrote that I have bought the Supermicro Board and when all items are here I want to make a new installation. I can not send now zpool status -xv. Maybe you have right tha

Re: [zfs-discuss] Faulted SSDs

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Piscuc > > NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM >         zpool       ONLINE       0     0     0 >           raidz1-0  ONLINE       0     0     0 >             c2t0d0  ONLINE       0    

Re: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with different permissions

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Richard Elling > > > zfs create tank/snapshots > > zfs set sharenfs=on tank/snapshots > > "on" by default sets the NFS share parameters to: "rw" > You can set specific NFS share parameters by

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interesting/Strange Problem

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of artiepen > > Sure, but it's really straightforward: > 0,5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55 * * * * chown -R user1:group1 > /zpool1/test/share2/* 2> /dev/null ; chmod -R g+w /zpool1/test/share2/* 2

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

> -Original Message- > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:46 AM > To: 'Lanky Doodle'; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions > > > Fr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Disk failed, System not booting

Just boot off a live cd, import the pool, and swap it that way. I'm guessing you havent changed your failmode to continue? On Dec 20, 2010 10:48 AM, "Albert Frenz" wrote: > hi there, > > i got freenas installed with a raidz1 pool of 3 disks. one of them now failed and it gives me errors like "Unr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Resilver/scrub times?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Lauridsen > > sorry to bring the old one up, but I think it is better than make a new one ?? > Are there some one who have some resilver time from a raidz1/2 pool whith > 5TB+ data on it

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Lanky Doodle > > Is there any argument against using the rpool for all data storage as well as > being the install volume? Generally speaking, you can't do it. The rpool is only supported on m

Re: [zfs-discuss] Resilver/scrub times?

Hi On Sunday 19 December 2010 11:12:32 Tobias Lauridsen wrote: > sorry to bring the old one up, but I think it is better than make a new one > ?? Are there some one who have some resilver time from a raidz1/2 pool > whith 5TB+ data on it ? if you just looked into the discussion over the past day

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Lanky Doodle > > > I believe Oracle is aware of the problem, but most of > > the core ZFS team has left. And of course, a fix for > > Oracle Solaris no longer means a fix for the rest of > > us

[zfs-discuss] did you get this? (urgent)

If you want to discover secrets most network marketers will never know about creating lifelong financial independence & passive, residual income, then this may be the most important email you ever read... Click HERE Now To Discover What "They" Don't Want You To Know... Once I discovered these se

Re: [zfs-discuss] Intermittent ZFS hang

I have now upgraded to OpenIndiana b148 which should fix those bugs that you mentioned. I lost the picture on the monitor but by ssh:ing from another computer the system seems to be running fine. The problems have become worse now and I get a freeze every time I try to access the 8-disk raidz2

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interesting/Strange Problem

If it helps anyone who might see this in the future. I still haven't figured it out. I ran a dependency checker on the application and even though >I< can browse the share that it's located on, the application says that its dlls cannot be found even though they are in the same dir as the app. F

Re: [zfs-discuss] Resilver/scrub times?

sorry to bring the old one up, but I think it is better than make a new one ?? Are there some one who have some resilver time from a raidz1/2 pool whith 5TB+ data on it ? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-dis

[zfs-discuss] Disk failed, System not booting

hi there, i got freenas installed with a raidz1 pool of 3 disks. one of them now failed and it gives me errors like "Unrecovered red errors: autorreallocatefailed" or "MEDIUM ERROR asc:11,4" and the system won't even boot up. so i bought a replacement drive, but i am a bit concerned since norma

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interesting/Strange Problem

To clarify how odd that is: /zpool1/test/share2 is mounted on a web server at /mount/point. Going to /mount/point as root and chowning * caused the issue to happen with /zpool1/test/share1. This is reproducible, by the way. I can cause this to happen again, right now if I wanted to... Another

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Dec 18, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Lanky Doodle wrote: > Now this is getting really complex, but can you have server failover in ZFS, > much like DFS-R in Windows - you point clients to a clustered ZFS namespace > so if a complete server failed nothing is interrupted. This is the purpose of an Ambe

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interesting/Strange Problem

Sure, but it's really straightforward: 0,5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55 * * * * chown -R user1:group1 /zpool1/test/share2/* 2> /dev/null ; chmod -R g+w /zpool1/test/share2/* 2> /dev/null Here's the thing: There's no way that it was a hard/soft link. I know what those are and I haven't linked any

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 20/12/2010 13:59, Richard Elling wrote: On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Phil Harman > wrote: Why does resilvering take so long in raidz anyway? Because it's broken. There were some changes a while back that made it more broken. "broken" is the wrong term here. I

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

Thanks relling. I suppose at the end of the day any file system/volume manager has it's flaws so perhaps it's better to look at the positives of each and decide based on them. So, back to my question above, is there a deciding argument [i]against[/i] putting data on the install volume (rpool).

Re: [zfs-discuss] Faulted SSDs

Here is a part of "fmdump -eV" : Dec 19 2010 03:02:47.919024953 ereport.fs.zfs.probe_failure nvlist version: 0 class = ereport.fs.zfs.probe_failure ena = 0x4bd7543b8cf1 detector = (embedded nvlist) nvlist version: 0 version = 0x0

Re: [zfs-discuss] Faulted SSDs

NexentaStor logs are in /var/log. But the real information of interest is in the FMA ereports. fmdump -eV is your friend. -- richard On Dec 20, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Paul Piscuc wrote: > Hi, > > The problem seems to be solved with a zpool clear. It is not clear what > generated the issue, and I

[zfs-discuss] Faulted SSDs

Hi, The problem seems to be solved with a zpool clear. It is not clear what generated the issue, and I cannot locate what caused it, because a reboot seems to have deleted all logs:| . I have issued serveral grep's under /var/log, /var and now under /, but I could find any record. Also, I thought

Re: [zfs-discuss] Faulted SSDs

Also check your email. NexentaStor sends an email message describing the actions taken when this occurs. If you did not setup email for the appliance, then look in the NMS log. -- richard On Dec 20, 2010, at 5:33 AM, Khushil Dep wrote: > Check the dmesg and system logs for any output concernin

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Phil Harman wrote: >> Why does resilvering take so long in raidz anyway? > > Because it's broken. There were some changes a while back that made it more > broken. "broken" is the wrong term here. It functions as designed and correctly resilvers devices. Disagreei

Re: [zfs-discuss] Faulted SSDs

Check the dmesg and system logs for any output concerning those devices re-seat one then the other just in case too. --- W. A. Khushil Dep - khushil@gmail.com - 07905374843 Visit my blog at http://www.khushil.com/ On 20 December 2010 13:10, Paul Piscuc wrote: > Hi, this is current s

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

Phil Harman wrote: > Changes to the resilvering implementation don't necessarily require > changes to the on disk format (although they could). Of course, there > might be an issue moving a pool mid-resilver from one implementation to > another. We seem to come to a similar problem as wuth UF

[zfs-discuss] Faulted SSDs

Hi, this is current setup that I have been doing tests on: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM zpool ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 20/12/2010 11:29, Lanky Doodle wrote: I believe Oracle is aware of the problem, but most of the core ZFS team has left. And of course, a fix for Oracle Solaris no longer means a fix for the rest of us. OK, that is a bit concerning then. As good as ZFS may be, i'm not sure I want to committ t

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 20/12/2010 11:03, Deano wrote: Hi, Which brings up an interesting question... IF it were fixed in for example illumos or freebsd is there a plan for how to handle possible incompatible zfs implementations? Currently the basic version numbering only works as it implies only one stream of deve

Re: [zfs-discuss] a single nfs file system shared out twice with different permissions

On 18/12/2010 07:09, Geoff Nordli wrote: I am trying to configure a system where I have two different NFS shares which point to the same directory. The idea is if you come in via one path, you will have read-only access and can't delete any files, if you come in the 2nd path, then you will have

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

> I believe Oracle is aware of the problem, but most of > the core ZFS team has left. And of course, a fix for > Oracle Solaris no longer means a fix for the rest of > us. OK, that is a bit concerning then. As good as ZFS may be, i'm not sure I want to committ to a file system that is 'broken' an

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

Hi, Which brings up an interesting question... IF it were fixed in for example illumos or freebsd is there a plan for how to handle possible incompatible zfs implementations? Currently the basic version numbering only works as it implies only one stream of development, now with multiple possible

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

> Why does resilvering take so long in raidz anyway? Because it's broken. There were some changes a while back that made it more broken. There has been a lot of discussion, anecdotes and some data on this list. The resilver doesn't do a single pass of the drives, but uses a "smarter" temporal

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

Oh, does anyone know if resilvering efficiency is improved or fixed in Solaris 11 Express, as that is what i'm using. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailma

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

Thanks Edward. I do agree about mirrored rpool (equivalent to Windows OS volume); not doing it goes against one of my principles when building enterprise servers. Is there any argument against using the rpool for all data storage as well as being the install volume? Say for example I chucked 1