Re: [zfs-discuss] 512b vs 4K sectors

2011-07-04 Thread Daniel Carosone
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 01:11:09PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > Thomas, > > On Jul 4, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Thomas Nau wrote: > This is a roundabout way to do this, but it can be done without changing any > source :-) > With the Nexenta or Solaris iSCSI target, you can set the blocksize for a LUN.

Re: [zfs-discuss] 512b vs 4K sectors

2011-07-04 Thread Richard Elling
Thomas, On Jul 4, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Thomas Nau wrote: > Richard > > > On 07/04/2011 03:58 PM, Richard Elling wrote: >> On Jul 4, 2011, at 6:42 AM, Lanky Doodle wrote: >> >>> Hiya, >>> >>> I''ve been doing a lot of research surrounding this and ZFS, including some >>> posts on here, though I

Re: [zfs-discuss] 512b vs 4K sectors

2011-07-04 Thread Thomas Nau
Richard On 07/04/2011 03:58 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jul 4, 2011, at 6:42 AM, Lanky Doodle wrote: > >> Hiya, >> >> I''ve been doing a lot of research surrounding this and ZFS, including some >> posts on here, though I am still left scratching my head. >> >> I am planning on using slow RPM

[zfs-discuss] Changed to AHCI, can not access disk???

2011-07-04 Thread Orvar Korvar
I have created some threads here about possible bugs in ZFS or bugs in ZFS beadm (the PC reboots when I try too boot - why? bug in beadm??). But now it seems that maybe there is no problems with ZFS. I will update my threads with "SOLVED" tag when/if I find the solution. Here is my problem: I h

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Kalle Anka
Ok, it seems here is the missing data. Here is a snapshot called "stadar". Thank you. Problem solved. root@frasse:/mnt/TempStorage# zfs list -t all NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT TempStorage

Re: [zfs-discuss] 512b vs 4K sectors

2011-07-04 Thread Andrew Gabriel
Richard Elling wrote: On Jul 4, 2011, at 6:42 AM, Lanky Doodle wrote: Hiya, I''ve been doing a lot of research surrounding this and ZFS, including some posts on here, though I am still left scratching my head. I am planning on using slow RPM drives for a home media server, and it's these

Re: [zfs-discuss] 512b vs 4K sectors

2011-07-04 Thread Richard Elling
On Jul 4, 2011, at 6:42 AM, Lanky Doodle wrote: > Hiya, > > I''ve been doing a lot of research surrounding this and ZFS, including some > posts on here, though I am still left scratching my head. > > I am planning on using slow RPM drives for a home media server, and it's > these that seem to

[zfs-discuss] 512b vs 4K sectors

2011-07-04 Thread Lanky Doodle
Hiya, I''ve been doing a lot of research surrounding this and ZFS, including some posts on here, though I am still left scratching my head. I am planning on using slow RPM drives for a home media server, and it's these that seem to 'suffer' from a few problems; Seagate Barracuda LP - Looks to

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Jim Klimov
2011-07-04 15:58, Orvar Korvar пишет: PS. I do not have any snapshots: Depending on OS version and/or pool settings, they may not be shown by default as to not clobber the output. Try a direct request with "zfs list -t snapshot" or "-t all", or list the .zfs/snapshot directory under the filesy

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Jim Klimov
2011-07-04 15:04, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk пишет: NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT TempStorage 916G 45,1G 37,3G /mnt/TempStorage TempStorage/Backup 799G 45,1G 177G /mnt/TempStorage/Backup< OBS! 800GB! You probably have snapshots eating the remaining 620GB... I thought so too - df can lie a

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
try 'zfs list -t all' roy - Original Message - > PS. I do not have any snapshots: > > root@frasse:~# zfs list > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > TempStorage 916G 45,1G 37,3G /mnt/TempStorage > TempStorage/Backup 799G 45,1G 177G /mnt/TempStorage/Backup > TempStorage/EmmasFolder 78,6G 45

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Chris Ridd
On 4 Jul 2011, at 12:58, Orvar Korvar wrote: > PS. I do not have any snapshots: > > root@frasse:~# zfs list > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > TempStorage916G 45,1G 37,3G > /mnt/TempStorage > TempStorage/Backup

Re: [zfs-discuss] about leaving zpools exported for future use

2011-07-04 Thread Jim Klimov
Adding to Daniel's good answer, you may also want to use an "alternate root" and/or rename the old rpool (especially if the new system's one is also called "rpool") as in: # zpool import -f -R /oldrpool rpool oldrpool This would keep old rpool's tree (including absolute mount points from FS prop

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Orvar Korvar
PS. I do not have any snapshots: root@frasse:~# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT TempStorage916G 45,1G 37,3G /mnt/TempStorage TempStorage/Backup 799G 45,1G 177G /mnt/TempStorage/Backup

[zfs-discuss] Problems installing grub

2011-07-04 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
Hi all One of the rpool drives on this server died the other day, so I got a replacement that was 1 cylinder larger (60798 vs 60797). Still, I tried prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c7d0s2 | fmthard -s - /dev/rdsk/c6d0s2 zpool replace worked and the pool resilvered within a few minutes. Now, installing grub

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > TempStorage 916G 45,1G 37,3G /mnt/TempStorage > TempStorage/Backup 799G 45,1G 177G /mnt/TempStorage/Backup < OBS! > 800GB! You probably have snapshots eating the remaining 620GB... Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > - "Used", as reported by "df", will match "Used", as reported by "zfs > list". Sorry, it should be "Used", as reported by "df", will match "Refer", as reported by "zfs list". -- Fajar ___ zfs-

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote: > The problem is more clearly stated here. Look, 700GB is gone (the correct > number is 620GB)! Somehow you remind me of the story "the boy who cried wolf" (Look, look! The wolf ate my disk space) :P > > First I do "zfs list" onto TempStorage/

Re: [zfs-discuss] 700GB gone? "zfs list" and "df" differs!

2011-07-04 Thread Orvar Korvar
The problem is more clearly stated here. Look, 700GB is gone (the correct number is 620GB)! First I do "zfs list" onto TempStorage/Backup which reports 800GB. This is correct. Then I do "df -h" which reports only 180GB, which is not correct. So, it should be 800GB of data, but "df" reports on