Re: [zfs-discuss] System crash on zpool attach & object_count == usedobjs failed assertion

[Nigel Smith]

I've just run zdb against the two pools on my home OpenSolaris box,
and now both are showing this failed assertion, with the counts off by one.

  # zdb rpool >/dev/null
  Assertion failed: object_count == usedobjs (0x18da2 == 0x18da3), file 
../zdb.c, line 1460
  Abort (core dumped)

  # zdb rz2pool >/dev/null
  Assertion failed: object_count == usedobjs (0x2ba25 == 0x2ba26), file 
../zdb.c, line 1460
  Abort (core dumped)

The last time I checked them with zdb, probably a few months back,
they were fine.

And since the pools otherwise seem to be behaving without problem,
I've had no reason to run zdb.

'zpool status' looks fine, and the pools mount without problem.
'zpool scrub' works without problem.

I have been upgrading to most of the recent 'dev' version of OpenSolaris.
I wonder if there is some bug in the code that could cause this assertion.

Maybe one unusual thing, is that I have not yet upgraded the 
versions of the pools.

  # uname -a
  SunOS opensolaris 5.11 snv_133 i86pc i386 i86pc  
  # zpool upgrade
  This system is currently running ZFS pool version 22.

  The following pools are out of date, and can be upgraded.  After being
  upgraded, these pools will no longer be accessible by older software versions.

  VER  POOL
  ---  
  13   rpool
  16   rz2pool

The assertions is being tracked by this bug:

  http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6801840

..but in that report, the counts are not off by one,
Unfortunately, there is little indication of any progress being made.

Maybe some other 'zfs-discuss' readers would try zdb on there pools,
if using a recent dev build and see if they get a similar problem...

Thanks
Nigel Smith


# mdb core
Loading modules: [ libumem.so.1 libc.so.1 libzpool.so.1 libtopo.so.1 
libavl.so.1 libnvpair.so.1 ld.so.1 ]
> ::status
debugging core file of zdb (64-bit) from opensolaris
file: /usr/sbin/amd64/zdb
initial argv: zdb rpool
threading model: native threads
status: process terminated by SIGABRT (Abort), pid=883 uid=0 code=-1
panic message:
Assertion failed: object_count == usedobjs (0x18da2 == 0x18da3), file ../zdb.c,
line 1460
> $C
fd7fffdff090 libc.so.1`_lwp_kill+0xa()
fd7fffdff0b0 libc.so.1`raise+0x19()
fd7fffdff0f0 libc.so.1`abort+0xd9()
fd7fffdff320 libc.so.1`_assert+0x7d()
fd7fffdff810 dump_dir+0x35a()
fd7fffdff840 dump_one_dir+0x54()
fd7fffdff850 libzpool.so.1`findfunc+0xf()
fd7fffdff940 libzpool.so.1`dmu_objset_find_spa+0x39f()
fd7fffdffa30 libzpool.so.1`dmu_objset_find_spa+0x1d2()
fd7fffdffb20 libzpool.so.1`dmu_objset_find_spa+0x1d2()
fd7fffdffb40 libzpool.so.1`dmu_objset_find+0x2c()
fd7fffdffb70 dump_zpool+0x197()
fd7fffdffc10 main+0xa3d()
fd7fffdffc20 0x406e6c()
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Question about multiple RAIDZ vdevs using slices on the same disk

[Daniel Smedegaard Buus]

Hi all :)

I've been wanting to make the switch from XFS over RAID5 to ZFS/RAIDZ2 for some 
time now, ever since I read about ZFS the first time. Absolutely amazing beast!

I've built my own little hobby server at home and have a boatload of disks in 
different sizes that I've been using together to build a RAID5 array on Linux 
using mdadm in two layers; first layer is JBODs pooling together smaller disks 
to match the size of the largest disks, and then on top of that, a RAID5 layer 
to join everything into one big block device.

A simplified example is this:
A 2TB disk (raw device) + a 2TB JBOD mdadm device created from 2 1TB raw 
devices + a 2TB JBOD mdadm device created from 4 500GB raw devices = 3x2 TB 
mixed (physical and logical) devices to form a final RAID5 mdadm device.

So, migrating to ZFS, I first examined the possibility to logically do the 
same, except throw away the "intermediate JBOD layer", that is, I thought it'd 
be nice if ZFS could do that part, i.e. make intermediate vdevs of smaller 
disks to use in the final vdev. As I found out, this isn't possible, though. 

The choices that I've come down to are two:
1) Use SVM to create the intermediate logical 2TB devices from smaller raw 
devices, then create a RAIDZ2 vdev using a mix of physical and logical devices 
and zpool that.
2) Divide all disks larger than 500GB into 500GB slices, then create 4 
individual RAIDZ2 vdevs directly on the raw devices, and combine them into the 
final zpool, thus eliminating the need for SVM, and maintaining portability 
between Linux and Solaris based systems.

I really prefer the second choice. I do realize this isn't best practice, but 
considering the drawbacks mentioned, I really don't mind the extra maintenance 
(it's my hobby ;) ), I can live with ZFS not being able to utilize the disk 
cache, and then there's mentioned the bad idea of UFS and ZFS living on the 
same drive, but that wouldn't be the case here anyway. All slices would be all 
ZFS.

However, what I'm concerned about, is that with this setup, there'd be 4 RAIDZ 
vdevs of which the 2TB disk would be part of all of them, the 1TB disk would be 
part of half of them, while the 500GB disks would each only be part of one of 
them.

The final question, then (sorry for the long-winded buildup ;) ), is: When ZFS 
pools together these four vdevs, will it be able to detect that these vdevs 
exist partly on the same disks and act accordingly? And by accordingly, I mean, 
if you just say "hey, there are four vdevs for me, better distribute reads and 
writes as much as possible to maximize throughput and response time", then this 
would be absolutely true in all cases where the vdevs all utilize separate 
hardware. But the exact opposite is the case here, where all four vdevs are 
(partly) on the one 2TB drive. If this approach is used here, then the 2TB 
drive would on the contrary suffer from heavy head thrashing when ZFS would be 
distributing accesses to four slices on the disk simultaneously.

In this particular case, the best approach would be to compound the four vdevs 
in a "JBOD style" rather than a "RAID style".

Does anyone have enough insight into the inner workings of ZFS to help me 
answer this question?

Thanks in advance,
Daniel :)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] swap across multiple pools

[Matt Keenan]

The default install for OpenSolaris creates a single root pool, and creates a 
swap and dump dataset within this pool.


In a mutipool environment, would be make sense to add swap to a pool outside or 
the root pool, either as the sole swap dataset to be used or as extra swap ?


Would this have any performance implications ?

cheers

Matt
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] swap across multiple pools

[James C. McPherson]

On  3/03/10 11:19 PM, Matt Keenan wrote:

The default install for OpenSolaris creates a single root pool, and
creates a swap and dump dataset within this pool.

In a mutipool environment, would be make sense to add swap to a pool
outside or the root pool, either as the sole swap dataset to be used or
as extra swap ?



Yes. This is what I do at home, and what we do on the onnv
gate machines - we've got swap in rpool and a separate,
dedicated, swap pool.



Would this have any performance implications ?


Negative performance implications? none that I know of.


James C. McPherson
--
Senior Software Engineer, Solaris
Sun Microsystems
http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] swap across multiple pools

[Casper . Dik]

>The default install for OpenSolaris creates a single root pool, and creates a 
>swap and dump dataset within this pool.
>
>In a mutipool environment, would be make sense to add swap to a pool outside 
>or 
>the root pool, either as the sole swap dataset to be used or as extra swap ?
>
>Would this have any performance implications ?

My own experience is that the zvol swap devices are much slower than swap
directly to disk.  Perhaps because I had compression on in the rpool,
but any form of data copying/compressing or caching for swap is a no-no: 
you use more memory and you need to evict more pages.

Casper

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expand zpool capacity

[Vladimir Leitenberger]

Hmm is it pissoble to upgrade my current zfs version to the new one, without 
updating whole system (pkg image-update)? 

The Problem is, i've made 5.1 Gb free space and tried to make a normal update, 
but upgrading from 111b to current 133 is a huge jump. 1050 Mb must be 
downloaded and the installation needs much more. 5.1gb freespace isn't enough 
for that ...

(P.S. I know it's a offtopic, but could some one explain me, why osol needs so 
much space on the plate? I mean, i've got 12 gb vhhd and only 5 is free. I need 
more that 6 gb freespace to make an update. Is this normal for osol ?!)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[ace]

Is there a method to view the status of the rams ecc single or double bit 
errors? I would like to confirm that ecc on my xeon e5520 and ecc ram are 
performing their role since memtest is ambiguous.


I am running memory test on a p6t6 ws, e5520 xeon, 2gb samsung ecc modules and 
this is what is on the screen:

Chipset: Core IMC (ECC : Detect / Correct)

However, further down "ECC" is identified as being "off". Yet there is a column 
for "ECC Errs".

I don't know how to interpret this. Is ECC active or not?

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/3981/ecc.jpg
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Casper . Dik]

>Is there a method to view the status of the rams ecc single or double bit 
>errors? I would like to 
confirm that ecc on my xeon e5520 and ecc ram are performing their role since 
memtest is ambiguous.
>
>
>I am running memory test on a p6t6 ws, e5520 xeon, 2gb samsung ecc modules and 
>this is what is on 
the screen:
>
>Chipset: Core IMC (ECC : Detect / Correct)
>
>However, further down "ECC" is identified as being "off". Yet there is a 
>column for "ECC Errs".
>
>I don't know how to interpret this. Is ECC active or not?

Off but only disabled by memtest, I believe.


You can enable it in the memtest menu.

Casper

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Filebench Performance is weird

[Richard Elling]

On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Abdullah Al-Dahlawi wrote:

> Greeting Richard
> 
> After spending alomost 48 hours working on this problem, I believe I've 
> discovered the BUG in Filebench !!!.
> 
> I do not believe it is the change directory that you have indicated below 
> cause this directory is used to dump the stat data at the end of the 
> benchmarks, it is NOT used during benchmark's I/O. (DTrace proved that).
> 
> Any way , what I discovered is that when you run filebench in BATCH mode and 
> using randomread workload, filebench does not honor the workingset size 
> indicated in the config file that the user has created intially.
> 
> file bench generate another workload config file on behalf of the user with 
> an extension ".f" and pretty much apply all the settings that the user has 
> intially chosen in his config file EXCEPT the workingset size.
> 
> This means (according to filebench documentation) that tworkingset will 
> default to ZERO which also mean the WHOLE file (5G in my case- NO way to fit 
> in ARC) is being used in random reads for 100 seconds (lots of seks) 
> and therefore greate latency.

You might have something there. Check the source at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/filebench/

> However, when I run my SAME benchmark in an Interactive mode, my workingset 
> size (10m) is honored  which means that 10M of the file is loaded into ACR 
> and random reads is conducted from ARC. wooo 100% ARC hit as shown by my 
> arcstats.
> 
> The problem now is how to fix this bug in order to use the batch mode 
> effectivly ???

That would be through the filebench project on sourceforge.
 -- richard

> 
> Any feed back
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Richard Elling  
> wrote:
> see below...
> 
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Abdullah Al-Dahlawi wrote:
> 
> > Greeting All
> >
> > I am using Filebench benchmark in an "Interactive mode" to test ZFS 
> > performance with randomread wordload.
> > My Filebench setting & run results are as follwos
> > --
> > filebench> set $filesize=5g
> > filebench> set $dir=/hdd/fs32k
> > filebench> set $iosize=32k
> > filebench> set $workingset=10m
> > filebench> set $function=generic
> > filebench> set $filesystem=zfs
> > filebench> run 100
> >  1062: 106.866: Creating/pre-allocating files and filesets
> >  1062: 106.867: File largefile1: mbytes=5120
> >  1062: 106.867: Re-using file largefile1.
> >  1062: 106.867: Creating file largefile1...
> >  1062: 108.612: Preallocated 1 of 1 of file largefile1 in 2 seconds
> >  1062: 108.612: waiting for fileset pre-allocation to finish
> >  1062: 108.612: Starting 1 rand-read instances
> >  1063: 109.617: Starting 1 rand-thread threads
> >  1062: 112.627: Running...
> >  1062: 213.627: Run took 100 seconds...
> >  1062: 213.628: Per-Operation Breakdown
> > rand-rate   0ops/s   0.0mb/s  0.0ms/op0us/op-cpu
> > rand-read1  41845ops/s 1307.7mb/s  0.0ms/op   
> > 20us/op-cpu
> >
> >  1062: 213.628:
> > IO Summary:  4226337 ops, 41845.0 ops/s, (41845/0 r/w) 1307.7mb/s, 
> > 21us cpu/op,   0.0ms latency
> >  1062: 213.628: Shutting down processes
> > -
> > The output looks GREAT so far  notice the 1307.7 mb/s
> >
> >  HOWEVER *
> >
> > When I run the SAME workload using Filebench "config file" in batch mode, 
> > the performance dropped significantly 
> >
> > Here is my config file & filebench results.
> >
> >
> > # Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
> > # Use is subject to license terms.
> > #
> > # ident"%Z%%M%%I%%E% SMI"
> >
> > DEFAULTS {
> > runtime = 30;
> > dir = /hdd/fs32k;
> > $statsdir=/export/home/abdullah/bench.stat/woow87;
> > stats = /export/home/abdullah/bench.stat;
> > filesystem = zfs;
> > description = "ZFS-RR-WS-10M";
> > }
> >
> > CONFIG rr32k {
> > function = generic;
> > personality = randomread;
> > filesize = 5g;
> > iosize = 32k;
> > nthreads = 1;
> >  workingset=10m;
> > }
> >
> > And the Run result 
> >
> > abdul...@hp_hdx_16:/usr/benchmarks/filebench/config# filebench rrws10m
> > parsing profile for config: rr32k
> > Creating Client Script 
> > /export/home/abdullah/bench.stat/HP_HDX_16-zfs-rrws10m-Mar_2_2010-03h_10m_46s/rr32k/thisrun.f
> > Running 
> > /export/home/abdullah/bench.stat/HP_HDX_16-zfs-rrws10m-Mar_2_2010-03h_10m_46s/rr32k/thisrun.f
> > FileBench Version 1.4.4
> >  1147: 0.004: Random Read Version 2.0 IO personality successfully loaded
> >  1147: 0.004: Creating/pre-allocating files and filesets
> >  1147: 0.005: File largefile1: mbytes=5120
> >  1147: 0.005: Re-using file largefile1.
> >  1147: 0.005: Creating file largefile1...
> >  1147: 1.837: Preallocated 1 of 1 of file largefile1 in 2 seconds
> >  1147: 1.837: wait

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Tomas Ögren]

On 03 March, 2010 - casper@sun.com sent me these 0,8K bytes:

> 
> >Is there a method to view the status of the rams ecc single or double bit 
> >errors? I would like to 
> confirm that ecc on my xeon e5520 and ecc ram are performing their role since 
> memtest is ambiguous.
> >
> >
> >I am running memory test on a p6t6 ws, e5520 xeon, 2gb samsung ecc modules 
> >and this is what is on 
> the screen:
> >
> >Chipset: Core IMC (ECC : Detect / Correct)
> >
> >However, further down "ECC" is identified as being "off". Yet there is a 
> >column for "ECC Errs".
> >
> >I don't know how to interpret this. Is ECC active or not?
> 
> Off but only disabled by memtest, I believe.

Memtest doesn't want potential errors to be hidden by ECC, so it
disables ECC to see them if they occur.

> 
> You can enable it in the memtest menu.
> 
> Casper
> 
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


/Tomas
-- 
Tomas Ögren, st...@acc.umu.se, http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Who is using ZFS ACL's in production?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

On Tue, March 2, 2010 15:12, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Hmmm; the "lack of flexibility" you talk about comes from not using the
>> security model sensibly -- having per-person groups is very useful in
>> that security model.
>
> I have 70 odd thousand users. Why would I want to also have 70 thousand
> groups with only one user in each one? From an authorization perspective,
> the user and group are identical. The absolute only reason to implement
> such a duplicative environment is so you can have one umask, but still be
> able to control whether or not someone other than the user gets
> permissions
> on new files. In a world with inheritable ACL's, you don't need to do
> that.

It's the normal way to do it; not sure where in the Linux world it arose,
but I first saw it in some early distribution.  It's done automatically by
"adduser".   In my perception, it's "best practice".  So the question is,
why do you NOT want to do it?

>> You see it as a "legacy security model"; but for me it's the primary
>> security model, with ACLs as an add-on.  It's the only one that's
>> supported across the various ways of sharing the disks. In the end,
>> Solaris is one player in the POSIX world, and cutting yourself off from
>> that would be very limiting.
>
> If the design requirements of your filesystem require backward
> interoperability, then yes. On the other hand, if they don't, and you
> would
> be better served with a pure-ACL deployment, why hold yourself down with
> the chains of a security model you don't need?

I can't believe in that model.  If I buy it, every time I consider a
script set or application for use, I have to do extensive testing to
verify that it works in the model.  And I have to deal with users having
that problem on their own.  This is far, far too expensive to give any
serious consideration to.

This is why people hate flag-day changes.

>> It's precisely to avoid having shell access being a poor stepchild that
>> I'm resisting ACLs.  As currently implemented, they relegate my primary
>> access to the system to second-class status.
>
> How so? Do you mean operating in a shell on a system with no ACL support?

The command-line interface to ACLs is confusing, possibly weak.

>> And NFSv4 is mostly a rumor in my universe; NFSv2 and v3 are what people
>> actually use.
>
> Really? We've deployed NFSv4 here, and other than this ACL/chmod issue
> it's
> working great. I think I'd rather design my future technology based on the
> needs and possibilities of the future, not on the past. From that
> perspective, why should Sun bother to work on NFSv4 at all if nobody uses
> it.

Generally you have to work on things for a while before they get
widespread adoption, especially by outside implementers.  It's entirely
possible that NFS V4 will be widely used, but from what I read on linux
sysadmin forums, it isn't yet.

> Again, I'm not advocating removing any current functionality or depriving
> you of anything you currently have. I'm simply requesting an additional
> feature set that would be very useful for some deployments. I'm not really
> sure why people keep arguing about why it would not be good for their
> deployment, and considering such a reason it should not be implemented --
> that seems a bit self-centered.

When a tool is there, people will want to use it.  When using it causes me
endless trouble, I don't want them to use it.

We're all arguing for what will work best for us, I think; selfish, but I
hope in the "sanely selfish" region.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Edward Ned Harvey]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I am running the same version
of OS you are, and this bug could affect us.  Do you have any link to any
documentation about this bug?  I'd like to forward something to inform the
other admins at work.

 

 

 

From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Robert Loper
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09 PM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

 

I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08
s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit this "sparse file bug" when I deleted a
512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space was never freed up.
What I am asking is would there be any way to recover the space in the
filesystem without having to destroy and recreate it?  I am assuming before
trying anything I would need to update the server to U8.

Thanks in advance...

-- 
Robert Loper
rlo...@gmail.com

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] [osol-help] ZFS two way replication

[Edward Ned Harvey]

Sorry for double-post.  This thread was posted separately to
opensolaris-help and zfs-discuss.  So I'm replying to both lists.


> I'm wondering what the possibilities of two-way replication are for a
> ZFS storage pool.

Based on all the description you gave, I wouldn't call this two-way
replication.  Because two-way replication implies changes are happening at
both sides, that need to be propagated and merged both ways.  What you're
talking about is to have a one-way replication, and then later, reverse the
direction, and then later reverse the direction.  At all points, your
changes are only happening at one side.  This is infinitely easier than what
your subject implies.

Unless somebody knows more than I do ...  As for VM's, I think it's
important that you know you shouldn't expect live sync.  If you send a
snapshot of a local pool to the remote side, then 1 second later the remote
pool is already 1 second behind, and in a possibly different state than the
local pool.  If you fail the local pool, you'll have to connect to the
remote pool, and tell your VM to revert to whatever the latest snapshot was
on the remote pool.

Thinking about how to migrate back to the local storage ... 

Suppose you have a local snapshot called "t...@12345" and you send it to the
remote side.  That means these two filesystems are now in sync at that
snapshot.  If you can, make the local filesystem read-only as long as you're
making modifications on the remote side.  Then you can send an incremental
snap from remote "t...@12345" to "t...@23456" back to the local side.  Make
the remote side read-only while you're allowing modifications to the local
side, and vice-versa.

The complication that could arise, is when you want to send an incremental
snap to a filesystem which has been modified after the "baseline" snap was
taken.  This would happen if you synced the two sides, and made
modifications to the local side, and had an unintentionally failed local
pool.  You would then connect your VM to the remote pool, and made
modifications to the remote pool.  When your local pool comes back online
... These two pools were synced some time ago, but they've both been
modified since.  You would have to find a way to revert the local pool back
to the snap where they were in sync (I don't know how to do that, I don't
know for sure it's even possible).  You would have to acknowledge risking
the loss of local changes that happened after the sync.  And you would send
the remote incremental snap @23456 to the local side.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Who is using ZFS ACL's in production?

[Paul B. Henson]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> It's the normal way to do it; not sure where in the Linux world it arose,
> but I first saw it in some early distribution.  It's done automatically by
> "adduser".   In my perception, it's "best practice".  So the question is,
> why do you NOT want to do it?

It's the "historical" way to do it. Best practices change over time. As
I've already indicated, I would get no benefits from such a practice, and
it would result in 7 extra unnecessary groups in my environment. It
used to be common practice to leave your smtp servers as open relays, would
you have argued against locking them down because implementing smtp
authentication was too hard for you? It used to be common practice to
access servers via telnet, would you have argued against the deployment of
ssh because you didn't want to learn how to configure it? Your basic
premise in this argument seems to be that the tools to create a pure-ACL
environment shouldn't be made available to anyone because you don't
understand ACL's, they're too hard (for you) to use, and you would have to
change how you do things.

> I can't believe in that model. If I buy it, every time I consider a
> script set or application for use, I have to do extensive testing to
> verify that it works in the model.

And conversely, every time I consider a script or application for my
current deployment, I have to do extensive testing to make sure it doesn't
break my ACL's. It can't always be about you.

> And I have to deal with users having that problem on their own.  This is
> far, far too expensive to give any serious consideration to.

The option I propose would only be configurable by someone who had
privileges to update zfs filesystem properties. If that's the sysadmin,
clearly he wants it that way. If end users are delegated that privilege,
they must be deemed competent enough to shoot their own foot.

> The command-line interface to ACLs is confusing, possibly weak.

Matter of perspective. I don't have much trouble with it, and if I did I'd
write my own interface (as I've done before
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-authors/id/PHENSON/aclmod-1.1.readme).

> Generally you have to work on things for a while before they get
> widespread adoption, especially by outside implementers.  It's entirely
> possible that NFS V4 will be widely used, but from what I read on linux
> sysadmin forums, it isn't yet.

Somebody has to go first or it's a chicken and egg problem. And it seems
reasonable that the people who do go first will run into issues that need
new best practices to be deployed, no? And then it kind of sucks that
people who aren't even using the technology cry that models shouldn't
change while fearfully grasping their buggy whips ;).

> When a tool is there, people will want to use it.  When using it causes
> me endless trouble, I don't want them to use it.

If it's your server, you choose whether the option is used. If it's not
your server, or the user has been granted permission to manage their own
filesystem, then it seems it's not really up to you, and I'm not sure why
you think you should be able to dictate what other people do with their own
environments.

> We're all arguing for what will work best for us, I think; selfish, but I
> hope in the "sanely selfish" region.

The difference is I'm arguing for functionality that I need and will be
valuable in my environment. You're arguing that someone else shouldn't be
able to get the functionality they need because you won't be happy if it
exists at all, even if no one forces you to use it. It seems that's an
entirely different grade of selfishness, like a bully who knocks you down
and steals your lunch but just throws it away because he doesn't like
peanut butter :(. It's not about getting something you need but just
keeping someone else from having it.


-- 
Paul B. Henson  |  (909) 979-6361  |  http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/
Operating Systems and Network Analyst  |  hen...@csupomona.edu
California State Polytechnic University  |  Pomona CA 91768
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] swap across multiple pools

[Bill Sommerfeld]

On 03/03/10 05:19, Matt Keenan wrote:

In a multipool environment, would be make sense to add swap to a pool outside or
the root pool, either as the sole swap dataset to be used or as extra swap ?


Yes.  I do it routinely, primarily to preserve space on boot disks on 
large-memory systems.


swap can go in any pool, while dump has the same limitations as root: 
single top-level vdev, single-disk or mirrors only.



Would this have any performance implications ?


If the non-root pool has many spindles, random read I/O should be faster 
and thus swap i/o should be faster.  I haven't attempted to measure if 
this makes a difference.


I generally set primarycache=metadata on swap zvols but I also haven't 
been able to measure whether it makes any difference.


My users do complain when /tmp fills because there isn't sufficient swap 
so I do know I need large amounts of swap on these systems.  (when 
migrating one such system from Nevada to Opensolaris recently I forgot 
to add swap to /etc/vfstab).


- Bill




___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Robert Milkowski]

On 03/03/2010 15:19, Tomas Ögren wrote:


Memtest doesn't want potential errors to be hidden by ECC, so it
disables ECC to see them if they occur.

   


still it is valid question - is there a way under OS to check if ECC is 
disabled or enabled?



--
Robert Milkowski
http://milek.blogspot.com

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Darren J Moffat]

Robert Milkowski wrote:

On 03/03/2010 15:19, Tomas Ögren wrote:


Memtest doesn't want potential errors to be hidden by ECC, so it
disables ECC to see them if they occur.

   


still it is valid question - is there a way under OS to check if ECC is 
disabled or enabled?


Maybe something in the output of smbios(1M)

--
Darren J Moffat
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Francois Napoleoni]

If you have a valid Solaris Support contract you can ask for the 
corresponding IDR to fix this issue.


(Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling right now :) )

F.

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I am running the same 
version of OS you are, and this bug could affect us.  Do you have any 
link to any documentation about this bug?  I’d like to forward something 
to inform the other admins at work.


 

 

 

*From:* zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org 
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Loper

*Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09 PM
*To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
*Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

 

I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08 
s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit this "sparse file bug" when I 
deleted a 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space was 
never freed up.  What I am asking is would there be any way to recover 
the space in the filesystem without having to destroy and recreate it?  
I am assuming before trying anything I would need to update the server 
to U8.


Thanks in advance...

--
Robert Loper
rlo...@gmail.com 




___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Question about multiple RAIDZ vdevs using slices on the same disk

[Tonmaus]

Hi,

following the zfs best practise guide, my understanding is that neither choice 
is very good. There is maybe a third choice, that is

pool
--vdev1 
--disk
--disk
.
--disk 

...

--vdev n
--disk 
--disk
.
--disk

whereas the vdevs will add up in capacity. As far as I understand the option to 
use a parity protected stripe set (i.e. raidz) would be on the vdev layer. As 
far as I understand the smallest disk will limit the capacity of the vdev, not 
of the pool, so that the size should be constant within a pool. Potential hot 
spares would be universally usable for any vdev if they match the size of the 
largest member of any vdev. (i.e. 2 GB).
The benefit of that solution are that a physical disk device failure will not 
affect more than one vdev, and that IO will scale across vdevs as much as 
capacity. The drawback is that the per-vdev redundancy has a price in capacity.
I hope I am correct - I am a newbie as you.

Regards,

Tonmaus
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Francois Napoleoni]

Sorrymy, mistake, i  did not checked this one for a while ... patch for 
this CR is 14144{45}-09 aka Solaris 10 update 8 kernel parch.


Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I am running the same 
version of OS you are, and this bug could affect us.  Do you have any 
link to any documentation about this bug?  I’d like to forward something 
to inform the other admins at work.


 

 

 

*From:* zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org 
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Loper

*Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09 PM
*To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
*Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

 

I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08 
s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit this "sparse file bug" when I 
deleted a 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space was 
never freed up.  What I am asking is would there be any way to recover 
the space in the filesystem without having to destroy and recreate it?  
I am assuming before trying anything I would need to update the server 
to U8.


Thanks in advance...

--
Robert Loper
rlo...@gmail.com 




___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Who is using ZFS ACL's in production?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

On Wed, March 3, 2010 10:23, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> It's the normal way to do it; not sure where in the Linux world it
>> arose,
>> but I first saw it in some early distribution.  It's done automatically
>> by
>> "adduser".   In my perception, it's "best practice".  So the question
>> is,
>> why do you NOT want to do it?
>
> It's the "historical" way to do it. Best practices change over time. As
> I've already indicated, I would get no benefits from such a practice, and
> it would result in 7 extra unnecessary groups in my environment. It
> used to be common practice to leave your smtp servers as open relays,
> would
> you have argued against locking them down because implementing smtp
> authentication was too hard for you? It used to be common practice to
> access servers via telnet, would you have argued against the deployment of
> ssh because you didn't want to learn how to configure it? Your basic
> premise in this argument seems to be that the tools to create a pure-ACL
> environment shouldn't be made available to anyone because you don't
> understand ACL's, they're too hard (for you) to use, and you would have to
> change how you do things.

I don't think it will work as well for  you as you think it will; I think
you'll then find yourself complaining that backup systems don't work, and
indexing systems don't work, and this doesn't work, and that doesn't work,
all because you've broken the underlying model.  And I have a definite
fear that it'll end up impacting me, that "not using it" won't be as clear
an option as you think it will.

And I'm pretty sure I've said considerably more than is really necessary,
at this point, so I will try very hard to avoid getting sucked back into
this discussion, at least with just the same old opinions.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Moving Storage to opensolaris+zfs. What about backup?

[Svein Skogen]

Until now, I've ran Windows Storage server 2008, but the ... lack of iSCSI 
performance has gotten me so fed up that I've now moved all the files off the 
server, to install opensolaris with two zpools, and nfs+smb+iSCSI sharing 
towards my windows clients, and vmware ESXi boxes (two of them). So far, so 
good.

Among the smb data, there is also almost a terabyte of photography work, that I 
_NEED_ backup of, which up until now has been performed using a HP 1/8G2 lto3 
job (8 slots, 1 drive, LTO3 autoloader, 1u), connected by a sas-cable 
(connected to an MPT)

However trying to wrap my head around solaris and backups (I'm used to FreeBSD) 
is now leaving me with a nasty headache, and still no closer to a real 
solution. I need something that on regular intervals pushes this zpool:

storage  4.06T  1.19T  2.87T29%  1.00x  ONLINE  -

onto a series of tapes, and I really want a solution that allows me to have 
something resembling a one-button-disaster recovery, either via a cd/dvd 
bootdisc, or a bootusb image, or via writing a bootblock on the tapes. 
Preferably a solution that manages to dump the entire zpool, including zfses 
and volumes and whatnot. If I can dump the rpool along with it, all the better. 
(basically something that allows me to shuffle a stack of tapes into the safe, 
maybe along with a bootdevice, with the effect of making me sleep easy knowing 
that ... when disaster happens, I can use a similar-or-better specced box to 
restore the entire server to bring everything back on line).

are there ... ANY good ideas out there for such a solution?
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Geoff Shipman]

The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701 included.  This is part
of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86).   For OpenSolaris
build 118 or later contains the fix so in the development builds.  

This avoids future problems with the CR but if your currently effected
by the problem the fix doesn't clear the troubles.

I believe a backup of the data, then destroy of the file system, then
recreating it and restoring is method to clear the space.  With the
later kernel the problem is avoided in the future.

Geoff 


On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:14, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
> If you have a valid Solaris Support contract you can ask for the 
> corresponding IDR to fix this issue.
> 
> (Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling right now :) )
> 
> F.
> 
> Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > I don?t know the answer to your question, but I am running the same 
> > version of OS you are, and this bug could affect us.  Do you have
> any 
> > link to any documentation about this bug?  I?d like to forward
> something 
> > to inform the other admins at work.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *From:* zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org 
> > [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Loper
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09 PM
> > *To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> > *Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug"
> #6792701
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08 
> > s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit this "sparse file bug" when I 
> > deleted a 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space
> was 
> > never freed up.  What I am asking is would there be any way to
> recover 
> > the space in the filesystem without having to destroy and recreate
> it?  
> > I am assuming before trying anything I would need to update the
> server 
> > to U8.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance...
> > 
> > -- 
> > Robert Loper
> > rlo...@gmail.com 
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> > 
> > ___
> > zfs-discuss mailing list
> > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> 
> -- 
> Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
> mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
> phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
> fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114
> 
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
-- 
Geoff Shipman - (303) 223-6266
Systems Technology Service Center - Operating System
Solaris and Network Technology Domain
Americas Systems Technology Service Center

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Francois Napoleoni]

From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing the now 
obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get ride of these sparse file bug.


F.

Geoff Shipman wrote:

The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701 included.  This is part
of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86).   For OpenSolaris
build 118 or later contains the fix so in the development builds.  


This avoids future problems with the CR but if your currently effected
by the problem the fix doesn't clear the troubles.

I believe a backup of the data, then destroy of the file system, then
recreating it and restoring is method to clear the space.  With the
later kernel the problem is avoided in the future.

Geoff 



On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:14, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
If you have a valid Solaris Support contract you can ask for the 
corresponding IDR to fix this issue.


(Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling right now :) )

F.

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I don?t know the answer to your question, but I am running the same 
version of OS you are, and this bug could affect us.  Do you have
any 

link to any documentation about this bug?  I?d like to forward
something 

to inform the other admins at work.

 

 

 

*From:* zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org 
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert

Loper

*Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09 PM
*To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
*Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug"

#6792701
 

I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08 
s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit this "sparse file bug" when I 
deleted a 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space
was 

never freed up.  What I am asking is would there be any way to
recover 

the space in the filesystem without having to destroy and recreate
it?  

I am assuming before trying anything I would need to update the
server 

to U8.

Thanks in advance...

--
Robert Loper
rlo...@gmail.com 






___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] System crash on zpool attach & object_count == usedobjs failed assertion

[Nigel Smith]

Hi Stephen 

If your system is crashing while attaching the new device,
are you getting a core dump file?

If so, it would be interesting to examine the file with mdb,
to see the stack backtrace, as this may give a clue to what's going wrong.

What storage controller you are using for the disks?
And what device driver is the controller using?

Thanks
Nigel Smith
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Geoff Shipman]

Right it would get rid of the CR, but does it free the disk space from
an event that occurred prior to patching ?.  


On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:51, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
>  From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing the now
> obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get ride of these sparse file
> bug.
> 
> F.
> 
> Geoff Shipman wrote:
> > The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701 included.  This is
> part
> > of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86).   For
> OpenSolaris
> > build 118 or later contains the fix so in the development builds.  
> > 
> > This avoids future problems with the CR but if your currently
> effected
> > by the problem the fix doesn't clear the troubles.
> > 
> > I believe a backup of the data, then destroy of the file system,
> then
> > recreating it and restoring is method to clear the space.  With the
> > later kernel the problem is avoided in the future.
> > 
> > Geoff 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:14, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
> >> If you have a valid Solaris Support contract you can ask for the 
> >> corresponding IDR to fix this issue.
> >>
> >> (Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling right now :) )
> >>
> >> F.
> >>
> >> Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> >>> I don?t know the answer to your question, but I am running the
> same 
> >>> version of OS you are, and this bug could affect us.  Do you have
> >> any 
> >>> link to any documentation about this bug?  I?d like to forward
> >> something 
> >>> to inform the other admins at work.
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>> *From:* zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org 
> >>> [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> >> Loper
> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09 PM
> >>> *To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> >>> *Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug"
> >> #6792701
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>> I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08 
> >>> s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit this "sparse file bug" when I
> >>> deleted a 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space
> >> was 
> >>> never freed up.  What I am asking is would there be any way to
> >> recover 
> >>> the space in the filesystem without having to destroy and recreate
> >> it?  
> >>> I am assuming before trying anything I would need to update the
> >> server 
> >>> to U8.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance...
> >>>
> >>> -- 
> >>> Robert Loper
> >>> rlo...@gmail.com 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> 
> >>> ___
> >>> zfs-discuss mailing list
> >>> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> >> -- 
> >> Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
> >> mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
> >> phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
> >> fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114
> >>
> >> ___
> >> zfs-discuss mailing list
> >> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> 
> -- 
> Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
> mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
> phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
> fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114
-- 
Geoff Shipman - (303) 223-6266
Systems Technology Service Center - Operating System
Solaris and Network Technology Domain
Americas Systems Technology Service Center

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Francois Napoleoni]

Yes i will ...

But this can be a good time to initiate/justify that useful backup which 
we never had time to do before :) .


F.

Geoff Shipman wrote:

Right it would get rid of the CR, but does it free the disk space from
an event that occurred prior to patching ?.  



On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:51, Francois Napoleoni wrote:

 From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing the now
obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get ride of these sparse file
bug.

F.

Geoff Shipman wrote:

The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701 included.  This is

part

of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86).   For

OpenSolaris
build 118 or later contains the fix so in the development builds.  


This avoids future problems with the CR but if your currently

effected

by the problem the fix doesn't clear the troubles.

I believe a backup of the data, then destroy of the file system,

then

recreating it and restoring is method to clear the space.  With the
later kernel the problem is avoided in the future.

Geoff 



On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:14, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
If you have a valid Solaris Support contract you can ask for the 
corresponding IDR to fix this issue.


(Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling right now :) )

F.

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

I don?t know the answer to your question, but I am running the
same 

version of OS you are, and this bug could affect us.  Do you have
any 

link to any documentation about this bug?  I?d like to forward
something 

to inform the other admins at work.

 

 

 

*From:* zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org 
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert

Loper

*Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09 PM
*To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
*Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug"

#6792701
 

I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08 
s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit this "sparse file bug" when I

deleted a 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space
was 

never freed up.  What I am asking is would there be any way to
recover 

the space in the filesystem without having to destroy and recreate
it?  

I am assuming before trying anything I would need to update the
server 

to U8.

Thanks in advance...

--
Robert Loper
rlo...@gmail.com 






___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114


--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Francois Napoleoni]

Yes iT will ...

But this can be a good time to initiate/justify that useful backup which
we never had time to do before :) .
F.


Geoff Shipman wrote:

Right it would get rid of the CR, but does it free the disk space from
an event that occurred prior to patching ?. 


On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:51, Francois Napoleoni wrote:

 From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing the now
obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get ride of these sparse file
bug.

F.

Geoff Shipman wrote:

The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701 included.  This is

part

of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86).   For

OpenSolaris
build 118 or later contains the fix so in the development builds. 
This avoids future problems with the CR but if your currently

effected

by the problem the fix doesn't clear the troubles.

I believe a backup of the data, then destroy of the file system,

then

recreating it and restoring is method to clear the space.  With the
later kernel the problem is avoided in the future.

Geoff

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:14, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
If you have a valid Solaris Support contract you can ask for the 
corresponding IDR to fix this issue.


(Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling right now :) )

F.

Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

I don?t know the answer to your question, but I am running the

same

version of OS you are, and this bug could affect us.  Do you have

any

link to any documentation about this bug?  I?d like to forward

something

to inform the other admins at work.

 

 

 

*From:* zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org 
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert

Loper

*Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09 PM
*To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
*Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug"

#6792701
 

I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08 
s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit this "sparse file bug" when I

deleted a 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space

was

never freed up.  What I am asking is would there be any way to

recover

the space in the filesystem without having to destroy and recreate
it? 

I am assuming before trying anything I would need to update the

server

to U8.

Thanks in advance...

--
Robert Loper
rlo...@gmail.com 






___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114




--
Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Robert Loper]

Can you clarify what this "IDR" is?  I do not have Sun Support on this
specific server.

 - Robert Loper

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Francois Napoleoni <
francois.napole...@sun.com> wrote:

> From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing the now
> obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get ride of these sparse file bug.
>
> F.
>
>
> Geoff Shipman wrote:
>
>> The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701 included.  This is part
>> of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86).   For OpenSolaris
>> build 118 or later contains the fix so in the development builds.
>> This avoids future problems with the CR but if your currently effected
>> by the problem the fix doesn't clear the troubles.
>>
>> I believe a backup of the data, then destroy of the file system, then
>> recreating it and restoring is method to clear the space.  With the
>> later kernel the problem is avoided in the future.
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:14, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
>>
>>> If you have a valid Solaris Support contract you can ask for the
>>> corresponding IDR to fix this issue.
>>>
>>> (Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling right now :) )
>>>
>>> F.
>>>
>>> Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>>>
 I don?t know the answer to your question, but I am running the same
 version of OS you are, and this bug could affect us.  Do you have

>>> any
>>>
 link to any documentation about this bug?  I?d like to forward

>>> something
>>>
 to inform the other admins at work.




 *From:* zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:
 zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert

>>> Loper
>>>
 *Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09 PM
 *To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
 *Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug"

>>> #6792701
>>>

 I have a Solaris x86 server running update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08
 s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit this "sparse file bug" when I deleted 
 a
 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB filesystem and the space

>>> was
>>>
 never freed up.  What I am asking is would there be any way to

>>> recover
>>>
 the space in the filesystem without having to destroy and recreate

>>> it?
>>>
 I am assuming before trying anything I would need to update the

>>> server
>>>
 to U8.

 Thanks in advance...

 --
 Robert Loper
 rlo...@gmail.com 



 
>>>
 ___
 zfs-discuss mailing list
 zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
 http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

>>> --
>>> Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
>>> mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
>>> phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
>>> fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114
>>>
>>> ___
>>> zfs-discuss mailing list
>>> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>>>
>>
> --
> Francois Napoleoni / Sun Support Engineer
> mail  : francois.napole...@sun.com
> phone : +33 (0)1 3403 1707
> fax   : +33 (0)1 3403 1114
>
>


-- 
Robert Loper
rlo...@gmail.com
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Geoff Shipman]

IDR's are fixes for troubles from the initial development state.  The
patches noted are the official fixes.

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:03, Robert Loper wrote:
> Can you clarify what this "IDR" is?  I do not have Sun Support on this
> specific server.
> 
>  - Robert Loper
> 
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Francois Napoleoni
>  wrote:
> From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing
> the now obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get ride of
> these sparse file bug.
> 
> F.
> 
> Geoff Shipman wrote:
> The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701
> included.  This is part
> of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86).
> For OpenSolaris
> build 118 or later contains the fix so in the
> development builds.  
> This avoids future problems with the CR but if your
> currently effected
> by the problem the fix doesn't clear the troubles.
> 
> I believe a backup of the data, then destroy of the
> file system, then
> recreating it and restoring is method to clear the
> space.  With the
> later kernel the problem is avoided in the future.
> 
> Geoff 
> 
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:14, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
> If you have a valid Solaris Support contract
> you can ask for the corresponding IDR to fix
> this issue.
> 
> (Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling
> right now :) )
> 
> F.
> 
> Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> I don?t know the answer to your
> question, but I am running the same
> version of OS you are, and this bug
> could affect us.  Do you have
> any 
> link to any documentation about this
> bug?  I?d like to forward
> something 
> to inform the other admins at work.
> 
>  
>  
>  
> *From:*
> zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
> [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Loper
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09
> PM
> *To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> *Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to
> fix ZFS "sparse file bug"
> #6792701
>  
> I have a Solaris x86 server running
> update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08
> s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit
> this "sparse file bug" when I deleted
> a 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB
> filesystem and the space
> was 
> never freed up.  What I am asking is
> would there be any way to
> recover 
> the space in the filesystem without
> having to destroy and recreate
> it?  
> I am assuming before trying anything I
> would need to update the
> server 
> to U8.
> 
> Thanks in advance...
> 
> -- 
> Robert Loper
> rlo...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
>   

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Robert Loper]

So the question remains... if I install patch 14144{45}-09 (by a LU to
Solaris 10 upd 8) will that allow the filesystem (not an rpool) to free up
the space?

 - Robert

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Geoff Shipman wrote:

> IDR's are fixes for troubles from the initial development state.  The
> patches noted are the official fixes.
>
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:03, Robert Loper wrote:
> > Can you clarify what this "IDR" is?  I do not have Sun Support on this
> > specific server.
> >
> >  - Robert Loper
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Francois Napoleoni
> >  wrote:
> > From my experience with customer hitting this bug, installing
> > the now obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get ride of
> > these sparse file bug.
> >
> > F.
> >
> > Geoff Shipman wrote:
> > The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for 6792701
> > included.  This is part
> > of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc), 141445-09 (x86).
> > For OpenSolaris
> > build 118 or later contains the fix so in the
> > development builds.
> > This avoids future problems with the CR but if your
> > currently effected
> > by the problem the fix doesn't clear the troubles.
> >
> > I believe a backup of the data, then destroy of the
> > file system, then
> > recreating it and restoring is method to clear the
> > space.  With the
> > later kernel the problem is avoided in the future.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:14, Francois Napoleoni wrote:
> > If you have a valid Solaris Support contract
> > you can ask for the corresponding IDR to fix
> > this issue.
> >
> > (Hi to Richard E. ... who must be boiling
> > right now :) )
> >
> > F.
> >
> > Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > I don?t know the answer to your
> > question, but I am running the same
> > version of OS you are, and this bug
> > could affect us.  Do you have
> > any
> > link to any documentation about this
> > bug?  I?d like to forward
> > something
> > to inform the other admins at work.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:*
> > zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
> > [mailto:
> zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> > Loper
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:09
> > PM
> > *To:* zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> > *Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any way to
> > fix ZFS "sparse file bug"
> > #6792701
> >
> > I have a Solaris x86 server running
> > update 6 (Solaris 10 10/08
> > s10x_u6wos_07b X86).  I recently hit
> > this "sparse file bug" when I deleted
> > a 512GB sparse file from a 1.2TB
> > filesystem and the space
> > was
> > never freed up.  What I am asking is
> > would there be any way to
> > recover
> > the space in the filesystem without
> > having to destroy and recreate
> > it?
> > I am assuming before trying anything I
> > would need to update the
> > server
> > to U8.
> >
> > Thanks in advance...
> >
> > --
> > Robert Loper
> > rlo...@gmail.com
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> >
> ___
> > zfs-discuss mailing list
> > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> >
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> > --
> > Francois Napoleoni / Sun Sup

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS "sparse file bug" #6792701

[Geoff Shipman]

Per Francois's response of 11:02 MT Yes adding the patch will free the
space on the file system.

 From: 
Francois Napoleoni

   To: 
Geoff Shipman

   Cc: 
Edward Ned Harvey
,
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
,
'Robert Loper' 
  Subject: 
Re: [zfs-discuss] Any way to fix ZFS
"sparse file bug" #6792701
 Date: 
Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:02:13 +0100

Yes iT will ...

But this can be a good time to initiate/justify that useful backup which
we never had time to do before :) .
F.

> Geoff Shipman wrote:
>> Right it would get rid of the CR, but does it free the disk space
from an event that occurred prior to patching ?. 


On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:15, Robert Loper wrote:
> So the question remains... if I install patch 14144{45}-09 (by a LU to
> Solaris 10 upd 8) will that allow the filesystem (not an rpool) to
> free up the space?
> 
>  - Robert
> 
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Geoff Shipman 
> wrote:
> IDR's are fixes for troubles from the initial development
> state.  The
> patches noted are the official fixes.
> 
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:03, Robert Loper wrote:
> > Can you clarify what this "IDR" is?  I do not have Sun
> Support on this
> > specific server.
> >
> >  - Robert Loper
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Francois Napoleoni
> >  wrote:
> > From my experience with customer hitting this bug,
> installing
> > the now obsolete IDR and rebooting was enoug hto get
> ride of
> > these sparse file bug.
> >
> > F.
> >
> > Geoff Shipman wrote:
> > The Solaris 10 Update 8 has the fix for
> 6792701
> > included.  This is part
> > of kernel patches 141444-09 (sparc),
> 141445-09 (x86).
> > For OpenSolaris
> > build 118 or later contains the fix so in
> the
> > development builds.
> > This avoids future problems with the CR but
> if your
> > currently effected
> > by the problem the fix doesn't clear the
> troubles.
> >
> > I believe a backup of the data, then destroy
> of the
> > file system, then
> > recreating it and restoring is method to
> clear the
> > space.  With the
> > later kernel the problem is avoided in the
> future.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:14, Francois
> Napoleoni wrote:
> > If you have a valid Solaris Support
> contract
> > you can ask for the corresponding
> IDR to fix
> > this issue.
> >
> > (Hi to Richard E. ... who must be
> boiling
> > right now :) )
> >
> > F.
> >
> > Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > I don?t know the answer to
> your
> > question, but I am running
> the same
> > version of OS you are, and
> this bug
> > could affect us.  Do you
> have
> > any
> > link to any documentation
> about this
> > bug?  I?d like to forward
> > something
> > to inform the other admins
> at work.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:*
> >
> zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
> >
> [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Robert
> > Loper
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 02,
> 2010 12:09
> > PM
> > *To:*
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> > *Subject:* [zfs-discuss] Any
> way to
> > fix ZFS "sparse file bug"
> > #6792701
> >
> >

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Miles Nordin]

> "a" == ace   writes:

 a> However, further down "ECC" is identified as being "off". Yet
 a> there is a column for "ECC Errs".

 a> I don't know how to interpret this. Is ECC active or not?

``Short circuit a data line or preferably a parity bit data line on
one of the DDR memory modules with ground for a short period. For
example pin 49 (parity bit 2, ie. bit 66) and pin 51 (parity bit 3 =
bit 67) are fine. The pin between them is Ground. Count the pins from
a DIMM where number 1 pin is marked. It is easy to stuff a lead to the
DIMM socket into the holes next to the socket pins. I used 10 ohm
resistor to make the probability of damage smaller.''

 -- http://hyvatti.iki.fi/~jaakko/sw/

The idea would be to attach this resistor and then look for an ECC
error count incrementing somewhere.  If the software is good it ought
to continue functioning and identify the bad DIMM.  likely?  i dunno.


pgpwQ0YkIuq9r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Moving Storage to opensolaris+zfs. What about backup?

[Erik Ableson]

Comments inline :
 
On Wednesday, March 03, 2010, at 06:35PM, "Svein Skogen"  
wrote:
>
>However trying to wrap my head around solaris and backups (I'm used to 
>FreeBSD) is now leaving me with a nasty headache, and still no closer to a 
>real solution. I need something that on regular intervals pushes this zpool:
>
>storage  4.06T  1.19T  2.87T29%  1.00x  ONLINE  -
>
>onto a series of tapes, and I really want a solution that allows me to have 
>something resembling a one-button-disaster recovery, either via a cd/dvd 
>bootdisc, or a bootusb image, or via writing a bootblock on the tapes. 
>Preferably a solution that manages to dump the entire zpool, including zfses 
>and volumes and whatnot. If I can dump the rpool along with it, all the 
>better. (basically something that allows me to shuffle a stack of tapes into 
>the safe, maybe along with a bootdevice, with the effect of making me sleep 
>easy knowing that ... when disaster happens, I can use a similar-or-better 
>specced box to restore the entire server to bring everything back on line).
>
>are there ... ANY good ideas out there for such a solution?
>-- 
Only limited by your creativity.  Out curiosity, why the tape solution for 
disaster recovery?  That strikes me as being more work, not to mention much 
more complicated for disaster recovery since LTOs aren't usually found as 
standard kit on most machines.  As a quick idea how about the following :

Boot your system from a USB key (or portable HD), and dd the key to a spare 
that's kept in the safe, updated when you do anything substantial.  There you 
recover not just a bootable system but any system based customization you've 
done. This does require downtime however for the duplication.

For the data, rather than fight with tapes, I'd go buy a dual-bay disk 
enclosure and pop in 2 2Tb drives.  Attach that to the server (USB/eSATA, 
whatever's convenient) and use zfs send/recv to copy over snapshots into a full 
exploitable copy.  Put that in the safe with the USB key and you have a 
completely mobile solution that wants only a computer. Assuming that you don't 
fill up your current 4Tb of storage, you can keep a number of snapshots to 
replace the iterative copies done to tape in the old fashioned world. Better 
yet, do this to two destinations and rotate one off-site.

That would be the best as far as disaster recovery convenience goes, but does 
still require the legwork of attaching the backup disks, running the send/recv, 
exporting the pool and putting it back in the safe. Using a second machine 
somewhere and sending it across the network is more easily scalable (but more 
possibly expensive).

Remembering that by copying to another zpool you have a fully exploitable 
backup copy.  I don't think that the idea of copying zfs send streams to tape 
is a reasonable approach to backups - way to many failure points and 
dependencies. Not to mention that testing your backup is easy - just import the 
pool and scrub.  Testing against tape adds wear and tear to the tapes and you 
need room to restore to, is time consuming, and a general PITA. (but it's 
essential!)

If you want to stick with a traditional approach, amanda is a good choice, and 
OpenSolaris does include an ndmp service, although I haven't looked at it yet.

This kind of design depends on your RTO, RPO, administrative constraints, data 
retention requirements, budget and your definition of a disaster...

IMHO, disk to disk with zfs send/recv offers a very flexible and practical 
solution to many backup and restore needs. Your storage media can be wildly 
different - small, fast SAS for production going to fewer big SATA drives with 
asymmetric snapshot retention policies- keep a week in production and as many 
as you want on the bigger backup drives. Then file level dumps to tape from the 
backup volumes for archival purposes that can be restored onto any filesystem.

Cheers,

Erik
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Moving Storage to opensolaris+zfs. What about backup?

[Svein Skogen]

The problem is that all disks I've seen so far, has been more fragile than 
tapes (given a real disaster, such as a clumsy sysadmin, or a burning home 
falling on top of them)... Trust me to knock over a disk.

//Svein
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Robert Milkowski]

On 03/03/2010 16:33, Darren J Moffat wrote:

Robert Milkowski wrote:

On 03/03/2010 15:19, Tomas Ögren wrote:


Memtest doesn't want potential errors to be hidden by ECC, so it
disables ECC to see them if they occur.



still it is valid question - is there a way under OS to check if ECC 
is disabled or enabled?


Maybe something in the output of smbios(1M)



bingo! thank you.

--
Robert Milkowski
http://milek.bogspot.com


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] recovering data - howto mount rpool to newpool?

[Erwin Panen]

Hi,

I'm not very familiar with manipulating zfs.
This is what happened:
I have an osol 2009.06 system on which I have some files that I need to 
recover. Due to my ignorance and blindly testing, I have managed to get 
this system to be unbootable... I know, my own fault.


So now I have a second osol 2009.06 machine. Off course this system has 
the same user and homedir structural settings.

I've added the harddisk from system 1 to system 2.
The zfspool was not exported at shutdown of system 1.
Of course both contain the standard rpool. As far as my reading has 
learned me, I should be able to import rpool to newpool.

-
zpool import -f rpool newpool
cannot mount 'export': directory is not empty
cannot mount 'export/home':directory is not empty
cannot mount 'export/home/erwin':directory is not empty


So I end up with /newpool containing boot and etc dirs.

How can I work around this problem? Mount to different mountpoint?

Thanks for helping out!

Erwin
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] recovering data - howto mount rpool to newpool?

[Richard Elling]

You need the -R option to zpool import.  Try the procedure documented here: 
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide#Resolving_ZFS_Mount_Point_Problems_That_Prevent_Successful_Booting

 -- richard

On Mar 3, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Erwin Panen wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm not very familiar with manipulating zfs.
> This is what happened:
> I have an osol 2009.06 system on which I have some files that I need to 
> recover. Due to my ignorance and blindly testing, I have managed to get this 
> system to be unbootable... I know, my own fault.
> 
> So now I have a second osol 2009.06 machine. Off course this system has the 
> same user and homedir structural settings.
> I've added the harddisk from system 1 to system 2.
> The zfspool was not exported at shutdown of system 1.
> Of course both contain the standard rpool. As far as my reading has learned 
> me, I should be able to import rpool to newpool.
> -
> zpool import -f rpool newpool
> cannot mount 'export': directory is not empty
> cannot mount 'export/home':directory is not empty
> cannot mount 'export/home/erwin':directory is not empty
> 
> 
> So I end up with /newpool containing boot and etc dirs.
> 
> How can I work around this problem? Mount to different mountpoint?
> 
> Thanks for helping out!
> 
> Erwin
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

ZFS storage and performance consulting at http://www.RichardElling.com
ZFS training on deduplication, NexentaStor, and NAS performance
http://nexenta-atlanta.eventbrite.com (March 16-18, 2010)




___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] recovering data - howto mount rpool to newpool?

[Ian Collins]

Erwin Panen wrote:

Hi,

I'm not very familiar with manipulating zfs.
This is what happened:
I have an osol 2009.06 system on which I have some files that I need 
to recover. Due to my ignorance and blindly testing, I have managed to 
get this system to be unbootable... I know, my own fault.


So now I have a second osol 2009.06 machine. Off course this system 
has the same user and homedir structural settings.

I've added the harddisk from system 1 to system 2.
The zfspool was not exported at shutdown of system 1.
Of course both contain the standard rpool. As far as my reading has 
learned me, I should be able to import rpool to newpool.

-
zpool import -f rpool newpool
cannot mount 'export': directory is not empty

Try adding the -R option to change the root directory.

--
Ian.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] What's the advantage of using multiple filesystems in a

[Simon Breden]

Hi Tom,

My input:
Create one file system per type of data to:
1. help organise your data logically
2. increase file system granularity which allows different file system 
properties to be set per filesystem: such as copies, compression etc
3. allow separate shares to be easily setup: via CIFS (SMB/Samba-like) or NFS
4. allow finer control over user access depending on data type

For example I split my file systems into logical types like:
1. user home directory file systems
2. media (music, photo, video etc)
3. software archive
4. backups
5. test area

Also, within each of these file systems, ZFS allows file system nesting, to 
allow better grouping.

If we assume the name 'tank' for the pool name then the default file system 
created when the pool is created is called 'tank'.

So for media file systems, I might create 'tank/media' as the base file system.
Within 'tank/media' I can create 'tank/media/music', 'tank/media/photo', 
'tank/media/video' etc.

For the home file systems, I might create 'tank/home' and then nest 
'tank/home/fred', 'tank/home/wilma' etc.

For easy, regular snapshotting of all the file systems, you can issue:
# zfs snapshot -r t...@20100303

This will give snapshot names for each nested file system under the root 'tank' 
file system like 'tank/h...@20100303', 'tank/home/f...@20100303', 
'tank/home/wi...@20100303', 'tank/me...@20100303', 'tank/media/mu...@20100303', 
'tank/media/ph...@20100303', 'tank/media/vi...@20100303' etc.

If you want some more stuff to read then try these:
http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/08/home-fileserver-zfs-setup/
http://breden.org.uk/2009/05/10/home-fileserver-zfs-file-systems/
http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/a-home-fileserver-using-zfs/

You'll also find stuff on snapshots, backups there too.

Hope this helps :)

Cheers,
Simon
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] recovering data - howto mount rpool to newpool?

[Erwin Panen]

Richard, thanks for replying;
I seem to have complicated matters:
I shutdown the system (past midnight here :-) )and seeing your reply 
come in, fired it up again to further test.
The system wouldn't come up anymore (dumped in maintenance shell) as it 
would try to import both rpool systems (I guess)
So I powered down, and disconnected the 2nd disk, and rebooted. So far 
so good, system comes up.
Then I reconnected the 2nd disk (it's a sata) but the system will not 
see it.

/var/adm/messages shows this:
---
er...@mars:/var/adm$ tail -f messages
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars  SATA device detected at port 0
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 663010 kern.info] /p...@0,0/pci1849,5...@9 :
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 761595 kern.info]SATA disk device 
at port 0
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 846691 kern.info]model WDC 
WD800JD-75JNC0

Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 693010 kern.info]firmware 06.01C06
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 163988 kern.info]serial 
number  WD-WMAM96632208

Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 594940 kern.info]supported features:
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 981177 kern.info] 28-bit LBA, 
DMA, SMART self-test
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 514995 kern.info]SATA Gen1 
signaling speed (1.5Gbps)
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 349649 kern.info]capacity = 
15625 sectors

-
I also have this from previous collections:
-
er...@mars:~# format
Searching for disks...done


AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS:
  0. c4d0 
 /p...@0,0/pci-...@6/i...@0/c...@0,0
  1. c6t0d0 
 /p...@0,0/pci1849,5...@9/d...@0,0
Specify disk (enter its number):
---
So I know the sata disk is /dev/dsk/c6t0d0

How would I proceed to get this fixed?

Thanks for helping out!

Erwin

Richard Elling wrote:
You need the -R option to zpool import.  Try the procedure documented here: 
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide#Resolving_ZFS_Mount_Point_Problems_That_Prevent_Successful_Booting


 -- richard

On Mar 3, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Erwin Panen wrote:

  

Hi,

I'm not very familiar with manipulating zfs.
This is what happened:
I have an osol 2009.06 system on which I have some files that I need to 
recover. Due to my ignorance and blindly testing, I have managed to get this 
system to be unbootable... I know, my own fault.

So now I have a second osol 2009.06 machine. Off course this system has the 
same user and homedir structural settings.
I've added the harddisk from system 1 to system 2.
The zfspool was not exported at shutdown of system 1.
Of course both contain the standard rpool. As far as my reading has learned me, 
I should be able to import rpool to newpool.
-
zpool import -f rpool newpool
cannot mount 'export': directory is not empty
cannot mount 'export/home':directory is not empty
cannot mount 'export/home/erwin':directory is not empty


So I end up with /newpool containing boot and etc dirs.

How can I work around this problem? Mount to different mountpoint?

Thanks for helping out!

Erwin
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss



ZFS storage and performance consulting at http://www.RichardElling.com
ZFS training on deduplication, NexentaStor, and NAS performance
http://nexenta-atlanta.eventbrite.com (March 16-18, 2010)




  
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] recovering data - howto mount rpool to newpool?

[Ian Collins]

Erwin Panen wrote:

Richard, thanks for replying;
I seem to have complicated matters:
I shutdown the system (past midnight here :-) )and seeing your reply 
come in, fired it up again to further test.
The system wouldn't come up anymore (dumped in maintenance shell) as 
it would try to import both rpool systems (I guess)
So I powered down, and disconnected the 2nd disk, and rebooted. So far 
so good, system comes up.
Then I reconnected the 2nd disk (it's a sata) but the system will not 
see it.

/var/adm/messages shows this:
---
er...@mars:/var/adm$ tail -f messages
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars  SATA device detected at port 0
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 663010 kern.info] /p...@0,0/pci1849,5...@9 :
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 761595 kern.info]SATA disk 
device at port 0
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 846691 kern.info]model WDC 
WD800JD-75JNC0

Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 693010 kern.info]firmware 06.01C06
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 163988 kern.info]serial 
number  WD-WMAM96632208
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 594940 kern.info]supported 
features:
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 981177 kern.info] 28-bit LBA, 
DMA, SMART self-test
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 514995 kern.info]SATA Gen1 
signaling speed (1.5Gbps)
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 349649 kern.info]capacity = 
15625 sectors


Assuming your system supports hot swap, what does "cfgadm | grep sata" show?

You should be able to use "cfgadm -c configure sataX/Y" to configure an 
attached, but unconfigured drive.


Or you could use failsafe boot and import/rename the old rpool.

--
Ian.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Simon Breden]

I ran smbios and for the memory-related section I saw the following:

IDSIZE TYPE
6415   SMB_TYPE_MEMARRAY (physical memory array)

  Location: 3 (system board or motherboard)
  Use: 3 (system memory)
  ECC: 3 (none)
  Number of Slots/Sockets: 4
  Memory Error Data: Not Supported
  Max Capacity: 4294967296 bytes

IDSIZE TYPE
6562   SMB_TYPE_MEMDEVICE (memory device)

  Manufacturer: None
  Serial Number: None
  Asset Tag: None
  Location Tag: DIMM_B1
  Part Number: None

  Physical Memory Array: 64
  Memory Error Data: Not Supported
  Total Width: 72 bits
  Data Width: 64 bits
  Size: 1073741824 bytes
  Form Factor: 9 (DIMM)
  Set: None
  Memory Type: 18 (DDR)
  Flags: 0x0
  Speed: 1ns
  Device Locator: DIMM_B1
  Bank Locator: Bank0/1
...

>From this output it appears as if Solaris, via the BIOS I presume, it looks 
>like my BIOS thinks it doesn't have ECC RAM, even though all the memory 
>modules are indeed ECC modules.

Might be time to check (1) my current BIOS settings, even though I felt sure 
ECC was enabled in the BIOS already, and (2) check for a newer BIOS update. A 
pity, as the machine has been rock-solid so far, and I don't like changing 
stable BIOSes...

Here's the start of the SMBIOS output:

# smbios
IDSIZE TYPE
0 104  SMB_TYPE_BIOS (BIOS information)

  Vendor: Phoenix Technologies, LTD
  Version String: ASUS M2N-SLI DELUXE ACPI BIOS Revision 1502
  Release Date: 03/31/2008
  Address Segment: 0xe000
  ROM Size: 524288 bytes
  Image Size: 131072 bytes
  Characteristics: 0x7fcb9e80
SMB_BIOSFL_PCI (PCI is supported)
SMB_BIOSFL_PLUGNPLAY (Plug and Play is supported)
SMB_BIOSFL_APM (APM is supported)
SMB_BIOSFL_FLASH (BIOS is Flash Upgradeable)
SMB_BIOSFL_SHADOW (BIOS shadowing is allowed)
SMB_BIOSFL_CDBOOT (Boot from CD is supported)
SMB_BIOSFL_SELBOOT (Selectable Boot supported)
SMB_BIOSFL_ROMSOCK (BIOS ROM is socketed)
SMB_BIOSFL_EDD (EDD Spec is supported)
SMB_BIOSFL_525_360K (int 0x13 5.25" 360K floppy)
SMB_BIOSFL_525_12M (int 0x13 5.25" 1.2M floppy)
SMB_BIOSFL_35_720K (int 0x13 3.5" 720K floppy)
SMB_BIOSFL_35_288M (int 0x13 3.5" 2.88M floppy)
SMB_BIOSFL_I5_PRINT (int 0x5 print screen svcs)
SMB_BIOSFL_I9_KBD (int 0x9 8042 keyboard svcs)
SMB_BIOSFL_I14_SER (int 0x14 serial svcs)
SMB_BIOSFL_I17_PRINTER (int 0x17 printer svcs)
SMB_BIOSFL_I10_CGA (int 0x10 CGA svcs)
  Characteristics Extension Byte 1: 0x33
SMB_BIOSXB1_ACPI (ACPI is supported)
SMB_BIOSXB1_USBL (USB legacy is supported)
SMB_BIOSXB1_LS120 (LS-120 boot is supported)
SMB_BIOSXB1_ATZIP (ATAPI ZIP drive boot is supported)
  Characteristics Extension Byte 2: 0x5
SMB_BIOSXB2_BBOOT (BIOS Boot Specification supported)
SMB_BIOSXB2_ETCDIST (Enable Targeted Content Distrib.)
  Version Number: 0.0
  Embedded Ctlr Firmware Version Number: 0.0

Cheers,
Simon
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] recovering data - howto mount rpool to newpool?

[Erwin Panen]

Ian, thanks for replying.
I'll give cfgadm | grep sata a go in a minute.
At the mo I've rebooted from 2009.06 livecd. Of course I can't import 
rpool because it's a newer zfs version :-(


Any way to update zfs version on a running livecd?

Thanks for helping out!

Erwin

Ian Collins wrote:

Erwin Panen wrote:

Richard, thanks for replying;
I seem to have complicated matters:
I shutdown the system (past midnight here :-) )and seeing your reply 
come in, fired it up again to further test.
The system wouldn't come up anymore (dumped in maintenance shell) as 
it would try to import both rpool systems (I guess)
So I powered down, and disconnected the 2nd disk, and rebooted. So 
far so good, system comes up.
Then I reconnected the 2nd disk (it's a sata) but the system will not 
see it.

/var/adm/messages shows this:
---
er...@mars:/var/adm$ tail -f messages
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars  SATA device detected at port 0
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 663010 kern.info] 
/p...@0,0/pci1849,5...@9 :
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 761595 kern.info]SATA disk 
device at port 0
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 846691 kern.info]model WDC 
WD800JD-75JNC0
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 693010 kern.info]firmware 
06.01C06
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 163988 kern.info]serial 
number  WD-WMAM96632208
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 594940 kern.info]supported 
features:
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 981177 kern.info] 28-bit LBA, 
DMA, SMART self-test
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 514995 kern.info]SATA Gen1 
signaling speed (1.5Gbps)
Mar  3 23:55:30 mars sata: [ID 349649 kern.info]capacity = 
15625 sectors


Assuming your system supports hot swap, what does "cfgadm | grep sata" 
show?


You should be able to use "cfgadm -c configure sataX/Y" to configure 
an attached, but unconfigured drive.


Or you could use failsafe boot and import/rename the old rpool.


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] recovering data - howto mount rpool to newpool?

[Ian Collins]

Erwin Panen wrote:

Ian, thanks for replying.
I'll give cfgadm | grep sata a go in a minute.
At the mo I've rebooted from 2009.06 livecd. Of course I can't import 
rpool because it's a newer zfs version :-(


Any way to update zfs version on a running livecd?

No, if you can get a failsafe session to boot, use that.  Or download a 
more recent liveCD from genunix.org!


--
Ian.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] (FreeBSD) ZFS RAID: Disk fails while replacing another disk

[Christian Heßmann]

Hello guys,


I've already written this on the FreeBSD forums, but so far, the  
feedback is not so great - seems FreeBSD guys aren't that keen on ZFS.  
I have some hopes you'll be more experienced on these kind of errors:


I have a ZFS pool comprised of two 3-disk RAIDs which I've recently  
moved from OS X to FreeBSD (8 stable).


One harddisk failed last weekend with lots of shouting, SMART messages  
and even a kernel panic.

I attached a new disk and started the replacement.
Unfortunately, about 20% into the replacement, a second disk in the  
same RAID showed signs of misbehaviour by giving me read errors. The  
resilvering did finish, though, and it left me with only three broken  
files according to zpool status:


[r...@camelot /]# zpool status -v tank
  pool: tank
 state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
corruption.  Applications may be affected.
action: Restore the file in question if possible.  Otherwise restore the
entire pool from backup.
   see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-8A
 scrub: resilver completed after 10h42m with 136 errors on Tue Mar  2  
07:55:05 2010

config:

NAME   STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
tank   DEGRADED   137 0 0
  raidz1   ONLINE   0 0 0
ad17p2 ONLINE   0 0 0
ad18p2 ONLINE   0 0 0
ad20p2 ONLINE   0 0 0
  raidz1   DEGRADED   326 0 0
replacing  DEGRADED 0 0 0
  ad16p2   OFFLINE  2  169K 6
  ad4p2ONLINE   0 0 0  839G resilvered
ad14p2 ONLINE   0 0 0  5.33G resilvered
ad15p2 ONLINE 418 0 0  5.33G resilvered

errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files:

tank/DVD:<0x9cd>
tank/d...@2010025100:/Memento.m4v
tank/d...@2010025100:/Payback.m4v
tank/d...@2010025100:/TheManWhoWasntThere.m4v

I have the feeling the problems on ad15p2 are related to a cable  
issue, since it doesn't have any SMART errors, is quite a new drive (3  
months old) and was IMHO sufficiently "burned in" by repeatedly  
filling it to the brim and checking the contents (via ZFS). So I'd  
like to switch off the server, replace the cable and do a scrub  
afterwards to make sure it doesn't produce additional errors.


Unfortunately, although it says the resilvering completed, I can't  
detach ad16p2 (the first faulted disk) from the system:


[r...@camelot /]# zpool detach tank ad16p2
cannot detach ad16p2: no valid replicas

To be honest, I don't know how to proceed now. It feels like my system  
is in a very unstable state right now, with a replacement not yet  
finished and errors on two drives in one RAID.Z1.


I deleted the files affected, but have about 20 snapshots of this  
filesystem and think these files are in most of them since they're  
quite old.


So, what should I do now? Delete all snapshots? Move all other files  
from this filesystem to a new filesystem and destroy the old  
filesystem? Try to export and import the pool? Is it even safe to  
reboot the machine right now?


I got one response in the FreeBSD Forum telling me I should reboot the  
machine and do a scrub afterwards, it should then detect that it  
doesn't need the old disk anymore - I am a bit reluctant doing that,  
to be honest...


Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Christian
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Miles Nordin]

> "sb" == Simon Breden  writes:

sb>   ASUS M2N-SLI DELUXE ACPI BIOS

If it is AMD then:

 http://ar.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=345422#345422

scripts need 'setpci' for solaris:

 http://blogs.sun.com/thebentzone/entry/compiling_pciutils_lspci_on_solaris

(untested)

also keep in mind it is not just on/off.  You need to set the speed of
AMD's hardware scrubber to something reasonable, and verify that
solaris will alert you when ECC errors are happening, especially
uncorrectable ones, otherwise the memory is not very useful.


pgp9oev39E0eN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Simon Breden]

Thanks Miles, I'll take a look.

Cheers,
Simon
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[ace]

Thanks for the info everyone! 

I will now setup scrubbing and verify ecc alerts.

Miles, AMD and intel's new xeon with the integrated memory controller ought to 
behave and interact with opensolaris the same way, yes?
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[ace]

Yes, you are correct. Thanks.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expand zpool capacity

[Erik Trimble]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 06:59 -0800, Vladimir Leitenberger wrote:
> Hmm is it pissoble to upgrade my current zfs version to the new one, without 
> updating whole system (pkg image-update)? 
> 
> The Problem is, i've made 5.1 Gb free space and tried to make a normal 
> update, but upgrading from 111b to current 133 is a huge jump. 1050 Mb must 
> be downloaded and the installation needs much more. 5.1gb freespace isn't 
> enough for that ...
> 

You want to go over to the install-discuss list.  It's entirely possible
to upgrade to any intermediary build - you don't have to just go all the
way up to the current one. You might be able to do the jump to b133 in 2
or 3 intermediary steps, cleaning out after each one.

That said, there is a lot of stuff being cached locally, so you can
clean it out between upgrades.  /var/pkg is particularly susceptible to
ballooning.



> (P.S. I know it's a offtopic, but could some one explain me, why osol needs 
> so much space on the plate? I mean, i've got 12 gb vhhd and only 5 is free. I 
> need more that 6 gb freespace to make an update. Is this normal for osol ?!)

It doesn't, really - you need ~6GB for a typical fresh install plus
goodies (+ swap + dump); 3GB seems to be about the minimum install these
days, which is slightly larger than Ubuntu Desktop. You tend to
accumulate more space in upgrades (many people forget to remove old
snapshots when finished), and the download process can eat up a variable
amount of space (up to your current size).  Here's the worst-case
example:

B111 root = 10GB
files needed to upgrade to B133 = 5GB
= total start size of 15GB

upgrade process:

(1) snapshot and create B133 boot filesystem = 0GB more
(2) upgrade the B133 filesystem = 5GB more used  (20GB now in use)
(3) boot to the new B133 filesystem = 0GB more used.
(4) delete the upgrade packages in the B133 filesystem = NO SPACE FREED
(files still exist in B111 snapshot)
(5) delete b111 snapshot = 10GB freed

So, fully upgrade a 10GB file system, you would temporarily need 10GB
more. This is fairly typical of most other UNIX/Linux systems in terms
of temporary space requirements. Just with Linux, you often forget about
it because the "temp" space is actually on CD or NFS directory (though,
not always).  Try watching your disk space during an 'apt-get
dist-upgrade' on Ubuntu or Debian, and you'll see an identical issue.



-- 
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] (FreeBSD) ZFS RAID: Disk fails while replacing another disk

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Heßmann wrote:


I've already written this on the FreeBSD forums, but so far, the feedback is 
not so great - seems FreeBSD guys aren't that keen on ZFS. I have some hopes


I see lots and lots of zfs traffic on the discussion list 
"freebsd...@freebsd.org".  This is where the FreeBSD filesystem 
developers hang out.



raidz1   DEGRADED   326 0 0
  replacing  DEGRADED 0 0 0
ad16p2   OFFLINE  2  169K 6
ad4p2ONLINE   0 0 0  839G resilvered
  ad14p2 ONLINE   0 0 0  5.33G resilvered
  ad15p2 ONLINE 418 0 0  5.33G resilvered

Unfortunately, although it says the resilvering completed, I can't detach 
ad16p2 (the first faulted disk) from the system:


The zpool status you posted shows that ad16p2 is still in 'replacing' 
mode.  If this is still the case, then it could be a reason that the 
original disk can't yet be removed.


To be honest, I don't know how to proceed now. It feels like my system is in 
a very unstable state right now, with a replacement not yet finished and 
errors on two drives in one RAID.Z1.


If it is still in 'replacing' mode then it seems that the best policy 
is to just wait.  If there is no drive activity on ad4p2 then there 
may be something more wrong.


Cold booting a system can be one of the scariest things to do so it 
should be a means of last resort.  Maybe the system would not come 
back.


Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Who is using ZFS ACL's in production?

[Paul B. Henson]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> I don't think it will work as well for you as you think it will; I think
> you'll then find yourself complaining that backup systems don't work, and
> indexing systems don't work, and this doesn't work, and that doesn't work,
> all because you've broken the underlying model.

Thanks for the concern :), but I think I know my potential use cases pretty
well. I don't know why backups would fail, they shouldn't be wandering
around changing permissions. And our backup system supports ZFS ACL's
anyway. Indexing systems? It's not a windows box ;). I doubt it would be
wise to configure this hypothetical option on a root pool, but as far as
I'm concerned, on my user/group data filesystems, this would be *fixing*
the underlying model (pure-ACL), not breaking it.

> And I have a definite fear that it'll end up impacting me, that "not
> using it" won't be as clear an option as you think it will.

Technology changes; it's a bad field to be in for the change adverse :).


-- 
Paul B. Henson  |  (909) 979-6361  |  http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/
Operating Systems and Network Analyst  |  hen...@csupomona.edu
California State Polytechnic University  |  Pomona CA 91768
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] (FreeBSD) ZFS RAID: Disk fails while replacing another disk

[Freddie Cash]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Heßmann wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I don't know how to proceed now. It feels like my system is
>> in a very unstable state right now, with a replacement not yet finished and
>> errors on two drives in one RAID.Z1.
>>
>
> If it is still in 'replacing' mode then it seems that the best policy is to
> just wait.  If there is no drive activity on ad4p2 then there may be
> something more wrong.
>
> Cold booting a system can be one of the scariest things to do so it should
> be a means of last resort.  Maybe the system would not come back.
>

We've had this happen a couple of times on our FreeBSD-based storage
servers.  Rebooting and manually running a scrub has fixed the issue each
time.

24x 500 GB SATA drives in 3x raidz2 vdev of 8 drives each

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwc...@gmail.com
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to verify ecc for ram is active and enabled?

[Miles Nordin]

> "a" == ace   writes:

 a> Miles, AMD and intel's new xeon with the integrated memory
 a> controller ought to behave and interact with opensolaris the
 a> same way, yes?

No, I think they'd interact differently.  The interaction is
``reporting errors'' I guess.  I think each major memory controller
family has in the past needed a separate driver.

The solaris memory scrubber might also be described as interaction,
and it is afaict silly on AMD because there is a hardware scrubber
which is additionally able to scrub the L2 cache.  I don't know if
intel has a hardware scrubber so there is another potential
difference.  Scrubbing may be silly period, statistically: you are
betting the exact same row will get hit twice with an error rate of at
most once/month seems implausible, but I still like the idea because
I'm interested in spotting bad ram or dirty connections more
deterministically instead of having to put ``memory load'' on the
machine or something.

definitely worth sorting all this out somehow instead of just paying
and hoping!  sorry I do not have real answers.

 http://www.beowulf.org/archive/2008-May/021335.html
 http://www.ece.rochester.edu/~mihuang/PAPERS/hotdep07.pdf


pgpYWvRuKXSOc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] (FreeBSD) ZFS RAID: Disk fails while replacing another disk

[Christian Heßmann]

On 04.03.2010, at 02:57, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:

I see lots and lots of zfs traffic on the discussion list "freebsd...@freebsd.org 
".  This is where the FreeBSD filesystem developers hang out.


Thanks - I'll have a look there. As usual, the cool kids are in  
mailing lists... ;-)



The zpool status you posted shows that ad16p2 is still in  
'replacing' mode.  If this is still the case, then it could be a  
reason that the original disk can't yet be removed.

[...]
If it is still in 'replacing' mode then it seems that the best  
policy is to just wait.  If there is no drive activity on ad4p2 then  
there may be something more wrong.


It bothers me as well that it says "replacing" instead of replaced or  
whatever else it should say. Since the resilvering completed I don't  
have any activity on the drives anymore, so I presume it somehow  
thinks it's done.



Cold booting a system can be one of the scariest things to do so it  
should be a means of last resort.  Maybe the system would not come  
back.


That's my fear. Although from what I can gather from the feedback so  
far the FreeBSD users seem somewhat familiar with an error like that  
and recommend rebooting. I might take the majority advice, make a  
backup of the important parts of the pool and just go for a reboot.


Might go for another repost into the freebsd-fs list before, though,  
so please bear with me that you have to read this again...


Thanks.

Christian
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss