On Aug 13, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:40:45AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:24 AM, Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/13/2012 10:45 AM, Scott wrote:
Hi Saso,
thanks for your reply.
If all disks are the same, i
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:40:45AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:24 AM, Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
>
> > On 08/13/2012 10:45 AM, Scott wrote:
> >> Hi Saso,
> >>
> >> thanks for your reply.
> >>
> >> If all disks are the same, is the root pointer the same?
> >
> > No.
> >
>
On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:24 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 10:45 AM, Scott wrote:
>> Hi Saso,
>>
>> thanks for your reply.
>>
>> If all disks are the same, is the root pointer the same?
>
> No.
>
>> Also, is there a "signature" or something unique to the root block that I can
>> search
On 08/13/2012 02:01 PM, Ray Arachelian wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 06:50 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>> See the -d option to zpool import. -- Saso
>
> Many thanks for this, it worked very nicely, though the first time
> I ran it, it failed. So what -d does is to substitute /dev. In
> order for it to wor
On 08/13/2012 06:50 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> See the -d option to zpool import. -- Saso
Many thanks for this, it worked very nicely, though the first time I ran
it, it failed. So what -d does is to substitute /dev. In order for it
to work, you also have to make links to the drive devices in t
On 08/13/2012 12:48 PM, Ray Arachelian wrote:
> While attempting to fix the last of my damaged zpools, there's one that
> consists of 4 drives + one 60G file. The file happened by accident - I
> attempted to add a partition off an SSD drive but missed the cache
> keyword. Of course, once this is
While attempting to fix the last of my damaged zpools, there's one that
consists of 4 drives + one 60G file. The file happened by accident - I
attempted to add a partition off an SSD drive but missed the cache
keyword. Of course, once this is done, there's no way to remove the new
unwanted member
Thanks again Saso,
at least I have closure :)
Scott
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:24:55AM +0200, Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 10:45 AM, Scott wrote:
> > Hi Saso,
> >
> > thanks for your reply.
> >
> > If all disks are the same, is the root pointer the same?
>
> No.
>
> > Also, is there
On 08/13/2012 10:45 AM, Scott wrote:
> Hi Saso,
>
> thanks for your reply.
>
> If all disks are the same, is the root pointer the same?
No.
> Also, is there a "signature" or something unique to the root block that I can
> search for on the disk? I'm going through the On-disk specification at t
Hi Saso,
thanks for your reply.
If all disks are the same, is the root pointer the same?
Also, is there a "signature" or something unique to the root block that I can
search for on the disk? I'm going through the On-disk specification at the
moment.
Scott
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:02:58AM +0
On 08/13/2012 10:00 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 03:02 AM, Scott wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a 5 disk raidz array in a state of disrepair. Suffice to say three
>> disks are ok, while two are missing all their labels. (Both ends of the
>> disks were overwritten). The data is still
On 08/13/2012 03:02 AM, Scott wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a 5 disk raidz array in a state of disrepair. Suffice to say three
> disks are ok, while two are missing all their labels. (Both ends of the
> disks were overwritten). The data is still intact.
There are 4 labels on a zfs-labeled disk,
12 matches
Mail list logo
