Bob Friesenhahn 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. Increasing the copies property
value on datasets might help in some fai
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
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. Increasing the copies p
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. Increasing the copies property
value on datasets might help in some failure scenarios, but prob
On Oct 19, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Tuomas Leikola wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Simon Breden 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 op
On 10/19/10 14:33, Tuomas Leikola wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Simon Breden 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.
This adv
Tuomas:
My understanding is that the "copies" functionality doesn't guarantee that
the extra copies will be kept on a different vdev. So that isn't entirely
true. Unfortunately.
On 20 October 2010 07:33, Tuomas Leikola wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Simon Breden wrote:
> > So are we
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Simon Breden 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
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Simon Breden
>
> So are we all agreed then, that a vdev failure will cause pool loss ?
Yes. When I said you could mirror a raidzN vdev, it was based on nothing
more credible than assumption b
A workaround is to create two pools each with your 1 vdev, make zvols for each
of them and export them via iscsi through the localhost interface. Then make a
third mirrored pool out of those two iscsi'ed zvols.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
So are we all agreed then, that a vdev failure will cause pool loss ?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Darren J Moffat
wrote:
> On 18/10/2010 16:48, Freddie Cash wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
>> wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
>>
On 18/10/2010 16:48, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
If you lose 1 vdev, you lose the pool.
As long as 1 vdev is striped and not mir
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
>>
>> If you lose 1 vdev, you lose the pool.
>
> As long as 1 vdev is striped and not mirrored, that's true.
> You can o
On 18/10/2010 15:12, Peter Tribble wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
If you lose 1 vdev, you lose the pool.
As long as 1 vdev is striped and not mi
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
>>
>> If you lose 1 vdev, you lose the pool.
>
> As long as 1 vdev is striped and not mirrored, that's true.
> You can o
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
>
> If you lose 1 vdev, you lose the pool.
As long as 1 vdev is striped and not mirrored, that's true.
You can only afford to lose a vdev, if your vdev itself is mirrored.
You co
OK, thanks Freddie, that's pretty clear.
Cheers,
Simon
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Simon Breden wrote:
> OK, thanks Ian.
>
> Another example:
>
> Would you lose all pool data if you had two vdevs: (1) a RAID-Z2 vdev and (2)
> a two drive mirror vdev, and three drives in the RAID-Z2 vdev failed?
If you lose 1 vdev, you lose the pool.
Doesn't m
OK, thanks Ian.
Another example:
Would you lose all pool data if you had two vdevs: (1) a RAID-Z2 vdev and (2) a
two drive mirror vdev, and three drives in the RAID-Z2 vdev failed?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing li
On 10/18/10 06:28 AM, Simon Breden wrote:
I would just like to confirm or not whether a vdev failure would lead to
failure of the whole pool or not.
For example, if I created a pool from two RAID-Z2 vdevs, and three drives fail
within the first vdev, is all the data within the whole pool unrec
I would just like to confirm or not whether a vdev failure would lead to
failure of the whole pool or not.
For example, if I created a pool from two RAID-Z2 vdevs, and three drives fail
within the first vdev, is all the data within the whole pool unrecoverable?
--
This message posted from opens
21 matches
Mail list logo
