On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> I depends on if the problem was fixed or not. What says
> zpool status -xv
>
> -- richard
[r...@nas01 ~]# zpool status -xv
pool: tank
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> Aren't you assuming the I/O error comes from the drive?
> fmdump -eV
okay - I guess I am. Is this just telling me "hey stupid, a checksum
failed" ? In which case why did this never resolve itself and the
specific device get marked as degra
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Marty Scholes wrote:
> Start a scrub or do an obscure find, e.g. "find /tank_mointpoint -name core"
> and watch the drive activity lights. The drive in the pool which isn't
> blinking like crazy is a faulted/offlined drive.
Actually I guess my real question is
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Marty Scholes wrote:
> Start a scrub or do an obscure find, e.g. "find /tank_mointpoint -name core"
> and watch the drive activity lights. The drive in the pool which isn't
> blinking like crazy is a faulted/offlined drive.
>
> Ugly and oh-so-hackerish, but it
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
> ' iostat -Eni ' indeed outputs Device ID on some of the drives,but I still
> can't understand how it helps me to identify model of specific drive.
Curious:
[r...@nas01 ~]# zpool status -x
pool: tank
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more de
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
> You are sadly mistaken.
>
> From GNU.org on license compatibilities:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
>
> Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0
> This is a free software license. It has
Quick sanity check here. I created a zvol and exported it via iSCSI to
a Windows machine so Windows could use it as a block device. Windows
formats it as NTFS, thinks it's a local disk, yadda yadda.
Is ZFS doing it's magic checksumming and whatnot on this share, even
though it is seeing junk data
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Slack-Moehrle
wrote:
> OpenSolaris or FreeBSD with ZFS?
zfs for sure. it's nice having something bitrot-resistant.
it was designed with data integrity in mind.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
ht
> It's very nice.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Michael Shadle wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>>
>> > I got a norco 4020 (the 4220 is good too)
>> >
>> > Both of those cost around 300-350 dol
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> I got a norco 4020 (the 4220 is good too)
>
> Both of those cost around 300-350 dolars. That is a 4u case with 20 hot
> swap bays.
Typically rackmounts are not designed for quiet. He said quietness is
#2 in his priorities...
Or does the N
This is my setup:
http://michaelshadle.com/2009/09/28/my-recipe-for-zfs-at-home/
It runs pretty quiet. I tried to swap the fans out on the 5-in-3 units
but couldn't get it to work, although I didn't put much effort into
it. I actually have two identical machines now. One runs SXCE. The
othe
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Simon Breden wrote:
> Yes, a modded XBOX will play a lot of things but will struggle with highly
> compressed streams and will fail at HD etc. The ION platform is especially
> interesting as these boxes are really cheap, and you can slap Linux + XBMC on
> there
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Simon Breden wrote:
> I have used OpenSolaris on the NAS and XBMC as the media player, and it works
> greatl.
Same here, although I use a normal modded XBOX. I am thinking of
switching to a Mac Mini w/ Plex soon (a friend's setup is really
awesome) - I want more
i looked at possibly doing one of those too - but only 5 disks was too
small for me. and i was too nervous about compatibility with mini-itx
stuff.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Jorgen Lundman wrote:
>
> I too went with a 5in3 case for HDDs, in a nice portable Mini-ITX case, with
> Intel Atom.
7;s got 4 fans but they are
> really big and don't make nearly as much noise as you'd think. honestly,
> it's not bad at all. I know someone who sits it vertically as well,
> honestly, it's a good case for the money
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Micha
rackmount chassis aren't usually designed with acoustics in mind :)
however i might be getting my closet fitted so i can put half a rack
in. might switch up my configuration to rack stuff soon.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> personally i like this case:
>
>
> http://www
Yeah - give me a bit to rope together the parts list and double check
it, and I will post it on my blog.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ware Adams wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Michael Shadle wrote:
>
>> I agree - SOHO usage of ZFS is still a scary "will this work?&qu
This seems like you're doing an awful lot of planning for only 8 SATA
+ 4 SAS bays?
I agree - SOHO usage of ZFS is still a scary "will this work?" deal. I
found a working setup and I cloned it. It gives me 16x SATA + 2x SATA
for mirrored boot, 4GB ECC RAM and a quad core processor - total cost
wit
Probably due to the lack of port multiplier support. Or perhaps they
run software for monitoring that only
works on Linux.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 2, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Trevor Pretty
wrote:
Overall, the product is what it is. There is nothing wrong with it
in the
right situation
IMHO it depends on the usage model. Mine is for home storage. A couple
HD streams at most. 40mB/sec over a gigabit network switch is pretty
good with me.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> Torrey McMahon wrote:
>
>> 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design
Yeah I wrote them about it. I said they should sell them and even
better pair it with their offsite backup service kind of like a
massive appliance and service option.
They're not selling them but did encourage me to just make a copy of
it. It looks like the only questionable piece in it is
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Scott Lawson
wrote:
> One thing you haven't mentioned is the drive type and size that you are
> planning to use as this
> greatly influences what people here would recommend. RAIDZ2 is built for
> big, slow SATA
> disks as reconstruction times in large RAIDZ's and
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Scott Lawson
wrote:
> If possible though you would be best to let the 3ware controller expose
> the 16 disks as a JBOD to ZFS and create a RAIDZ2 within Solaris as you
> will then
> gain the full benefits of ZFS. Block self healing etc etc.
>
> There isn't an iss
Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Miles Nordin wrote:
>>>>>> "ms" == Michael Shadle writes:
>
> ms> When I attach this new raidz2, will ZFS auto "rebalance" data
> ms> between the two, or will it keep the other one empty and do
> ms
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> No. The two vdevs will be load shared rather than creating a mirror. This
> should double your multi-user performance.
Cool - now a followup -
When I attach this new raidz2, will ZFS auto "rebalance" data between
the two, or will it keep
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Michael Shadle wrote:
> I'm going to try to move one of my disks off my rpool tomorrow (since
> it's a mirror) to a different controller.
>
> According to what I've heard before, ZFS should automagically
> recognize this new location
I'm going to try to move one of my disks off my rpool tomorrow (since
it's a mirror) to a different controller.
According to what I've heard before, ZFS should automagically
recognize this new location and have no problem, right?
Or do I need to do some sort of detach/etc. process first?
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Scott Lawson
wrote:
> No. There is no way to expand a RAIDZ or RAIDZ2 at this point. It is a
> feature that is often discussed
> and people would like, but has been seen by Sun as more of a feature home
> users would like rather2
> than enterprise users. Enterpris
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Michael Shadle wrote:
> Well basically I am trying to analyze giving up 1/7th of my space for
> the off chance that one drive fails during resilvering. I just don't
> know what kind of time to expect for a resilver. I'm sure it also
> d
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, David Magda wrote:
> There is a background process in ZFS (see "scrub" in zpool(1M)) that goes
> through and make sure all the checksums match reality (and corrects things
> if it can). It's reading all the data, but unlike hardware RAID arrays, it
> only checks t
My only question is is how long it takes to resilver... Supposedly the
entire array has to be checked which means 6x1.5tb. It has a quad core
CPU that's basically dedicated to it. Anyone have any estimates?
Sounds like it is a lot slower than a normal raid5 style rebuild. Is
there a way to
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Brent Jones wrote:
> I'd personally say send/recv would be more efficient, rsync is awfully
> slow on large data sets. But, it depends what build you are using!
> BugID 6418042 (slow zfs send/recv) was fixed in build 105, it impacted
> send/recv operations local t
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM, David Magda wrote:
> Create new pool, move data to it (zfs send/recv), destroy old RAID-Z1 pool.
Would send/recv be more efficient than just a massive rsync or related?
Also I'd have to reduce the data on my existing raidz1 as it is almost
full, and the raidz2
? Does it have to be the same drive lineup or does it work
based on drive uuid or something like that?
On Mar 29, 2009, at 8:58 AM, David Magda wrote:
On Mar 29, 2009, at 00:41, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well I might back up the more important stuff offsite. But in
theory it's all replac
On Mar 28, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn > wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I
have to turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not
need to be highly available and I do not need
47 AM, Bob Friesenhahn > wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
if i went raidz2 i'd want the entire 14 disk array in it i think.
i'd rather not do a raidz2 with less than 100% of the disks and
then a
second raidz1 (or 2) because i'd wind up losing much more disk s
2009/3/28 Tim :
>> There is no harm from using a raidz2 vdev even if an existing vdev is only
>> raidz1. If raidz2 is an available option then it is wise to choose it. Of
>> course starting out with raidz2 would have been even better.
> #2: raidz2 isn't always "wise" to choose. It's a matter o
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Peter Tribble wrote:
>> so I can add individual disks to the existing tank zpool anytime i want?
>
> Yes, but you wouldn't want to do that. (And zpool might not like it.)
>
> If you just add a disk, it just gets added as a new device. So you have
> unprotected sto
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Peter Tribble wrote:
> zpool add tank raidz1 disk_1 disk_2 disk_3 ...
>
> (The syntax is just like creating a pool, only with add instead of create.)
so I can add individual disks to the existing tank zpool anytime i want?
> It makes perfect sense. My thumpers h
I currently have a 7x1.5tb raidz1.
I want to add "phase 2" which is another 7x1.5tb raidz1
Can I add the second phase to the first phase and basically have two
raid5's striped (in raid terms?)
Yes, I probably should upgrade the zpool format too. Currently running
snv_104. Also should upgrade to
40 matches
Mail list logo
