Rsync with some ignore-errors option, maybe? In any case you've lost some
data so make sure to take record of zpool status -v
On Jul 1, 2011 12:26 AM, Tom Demo tom.d...@lizard.co.nz wrote:
Hi there.
I am trying to get my filesystems off a pool that suffered irreparable
damage due to 2 disks
Sorry everyone, this one was indeed a case of root stupidity. I had
forgotten to upgrade to OI 148, which apparently fixed the write balancer.
Duh. (didn't find full changelog from google tho.)
On Jun 30, 2011 3:12 PM, Tuomas Leikola tuomas.leik...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the input
Thanks for the input. This was not a case of degraded vdev, but only a
missing log device (which i cannot get rid of..). I'll try offlining some
vdevs and see what happens - altough this should be automatic atf all times
IMO.
On Jun 30, 2011 1:25 PM, Markus Kovero markus.kov...@nebula.fi wrote:
Hi!
I've been monitoring my arrays lately, and to me it seems like the zfs
allocator might be misfiring a bit. This is all on OI 147 and if there
is a problem and a fix, i'd like to see it in the next image-update =D
Here's some 60s iostat cleaned up a bit:
tank3.76T 742G
I have a resilver running and am
seeing about 700-800 writes/sec. on the hot spare as it resilvers.
IIRC resilver works in block birth order (write order) which is
commonly more-or-less sequential unless the fs is fragmented. So it
might or might not be. I think you cannot get that kind of
Hei,
I'm crossposting this to zfs as i'm not sure which bit is to blame here.
I've been having this issue that i cannot really fix myself:
I have a OI 148 server, which hosts a log of disks on SATA
controllers. Now it's full and needs some data moving work to be done,
so i've acquired another
It's been quiet, seems.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Jerry Kemp sun.mail.lis...@oryx.cc wrote:
I have not seen any email from this list in a couple of days.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
I'd pick samsung and use the savings for additional redundancy. Ymmv.
On Feb 25, 2011 8:46 AM, Markus Kovero markus.kov...@nebula.fi wrote:
So, does anyone know which drives to choose for the next setup? Hitachis
look good so far, perhaps also seagates, but right now, I'm dubious about
the
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Gareth de Vaux z...@lordcow.org wrote:
On Mon 2010-12-13 (16:41), Marion Hakanson wrote:
After you clear the errors, do another scrub before trying anything
else. Once you get a complete scrub with no new errors (and no checksum
errors), you should be
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Matthieu Fecteau
matthieufect...@gmail.com wrote:
My question : in the event that there's no more common snapshot between Site
A and Site B, how can we replicate again ? (example : Site B has a power
failure and then Site A cleanup his snapshots before Site B
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Cuyler Dingwell cuy...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not just this directory in the example - it's any directory or file.
The system was running fine up until it hit 96%. Also, a full scrub of the
file system was done (took nearly two days).
--
I'm just stabbing
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Peter Jeremy
peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
On 2010-Oct-21 01:28:46 +0800, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On Wed, October 20, 2010 04:24, Tuomas Leikola wrote:
I wished for a more aggressive write balancer but that may be too much
to ask
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk r...@karlsbakk.net
wrote:
I have this server with some 50TB disk space. It originally had 30TB on WD
Greens, was filled quite full, and another storage chassis was added. Now,
space problem gone, fine, but what about speed? Three of the
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
unless you use copies=2 or 3, in which case your data is still safe
for those datasets that have this option set.
This advice is a little too optimistic.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
4. Guess what happens if you have 2 or 3 failed disks in your raidz3,
and
they're trying to
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, is there a way, manually or automatically, to somehow balance the data
across these LVOLs? My first guess is that doing this _automatically_ will
require block pointer rewrite, but then, is there way to hack
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Simon Breden sbre...@gmail.com wrote:
So are we all agreed then, that a vdev failure will cause pool loss ?
--
unless you use copies=2 or 3, in which case your data is still safe
for those datasets that have this option set.
--
- Tuomas
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
Thank you, but, the original question was whether a scrub would identify
just corrupt blocks, or if it would be able to map corrupt blocks to a list
of corrupt files.
Just in case this wasn't already clear.
After
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Stephan Budach stephan.bud...@jvm.de wrote:
You are implying that the issues resulted from the H/W raid(s) and I don't
think that this is appropriate.
Not exactly. Because the raid is managed in hardware, and not by zfs,
is the reason why zfs cannot fix these
Hello everybody.
I am experiencing terribly slow writes on my home server. This is from
zpool iostat:
capacity operationsbandwidth
pool alloc free read write read write
- - - - -
dropping
from the SATA bus randomly. Maybe I'll cough together a report and post to
storage-discuss.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Tuomas Leikola tuomas.leik...@gmail.comwrote:
The endless resilver problem still persists on OI b147. Restarts when it
should complete.
I see no other solution than
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
, Tuomas Leikola tuomas.leik...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi!
My home server had some disk outages due to flaky cabling and whatnot, and
started resilvering to a spare disk. During this another disk or two
dropped, and were reinserted into the array. So no devices were actually
lost, they just were
Thanks for taking an interest. Answers below.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 9:01 PM, George Wilson
george.r.wil...@oracle.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Tuomas Leikola
tuomas.leik...@gmail.commailto:
tuomas.leik...@gmail.com wrote:
(continuous resilver loop) has been going
Hi!
My home server had some disk outages due to flaky cabling and whatnot, and
started resilvering to a spare disk. During this another disk or two
dropped, and were reinserted into the array. So no devices were actually
lost, they just were intermittently away for a while each.
The situation is
Hi.
I have a simple question. Is it safe to place log device on another zfs
disk?
I'm planning on placing the log on my mirrored root partition. Using latest
opensolaris.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Miles Nordin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ps iSCSI with respect to write barriers?
+1.
Does anyone even know of a good way to actually test it? So far it
seems the only way to know if your OS is breaking write barriers is to
trade gossip and guess.
Write a
On 9/20/07, Roch - PAE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Next application modifies D0 - D0' and also writes other
data D3, D4. Now you have
Disk0 Disk1 Disk2 Disk3
D0 D1 D2 P0,1,2
D0' D3 D4 P0',3,4
But if D1 and D2 stays immutable for
On 9/10/07, Pawel Jakub Dawidek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with RAID5 is that different blocks share the same parity,
which is not the case for RAIDZ. When you write a block in RAIDZ, you
write the data and the parity, and then you switch the pointer in
uberblock. For RAID5, you
On 8/11/07, Russ Petruzzelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible/recommended to create a zpool and zfs setup such that the OS
itself (in root /) is in its own zpool?
Yes. You're looking for zfs root and it's easiest if your installer
does that for you. At least latest nexenta unstable
We call that a mirror :-)
Mirror and raidz suffer from the classic blockdevice abstraction
problem in that they need disks of equal size.
Not that I'm aware of. Mirror and raid-z will simply use the smallest
size of your available disks.
Exactly. The rest is not usable.
On 8/10/07, Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, it might be nice to create a mirror with a 100G disk and
two 50G disks. Right now someone has to create slices on the big disk
manually and feed them to zpool. Letting ZFS handle everything itself
might be a win for some cases.
On 8/10/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tuomas Leikola wrote:
We call that a mirror :-)
Mirror and raidz suffer from the classic blockdevice abstraction
problem in that they need disks of equal size.
Not that I'm aware of. Mirror and raid-z will simply use the smallest
On 8/10/07, Moore, Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wishlist: It would be nice to put the whole redundancy definitions into
the zfs filesystem layer (rather than the pool layer): Imagine being
able to set copies=5+2 for a filesystem... (requires a 7-VDEV pool,
and stripes via RAIDz2, otherwise
On 8/9/07, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm looking for is a disk full error if ditto cannot be written
to different disks. This would guarantee that a mirror is written on a
separate disk - and the entire filesystem can be salvaged from a full
disk failure.
We call that
On 8/9/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're that bent on having maximum redundancy, I think you should
consider implementing real redundancy. I'm also biting the bullet and
going mirrors (cheaper than RAID-Z for home, less disks needed to start
with).
Currently I am, and as
Hi!
I'm having hard time finding out if it's possible to force ditto
blocks on different devices.
This mode has many benefits, the least not being that is practically
creates a fully dynamic mode of mirroring (replacing raid1 and raid10
variants), especially when combined with the upcoming vdev
Actually, ZFS is already supposed to try to write the ditto copies of a
block on different vdevs if multiple are available.
*TRY* being the keyword here.
What I'm looking for is a disk full error if ditto cannot be written
to different disks. This would guarantee that a mirror is written on
39 matches
Mail list logo
