Jim,
That is good news !! Let's us know how it goes.
Regards,
Sanjeev.
PS : I am out of office a couple of days.
Jim Hranicky wrote:
OK, spun down the drives again. Here's that output:
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jfh/zfs/threads
I just realized that I changed the configuration, so that
Hi Richard,
Been watching the stats on the array and the cache hits are < 3% on
these volumes. We're very write heavy, and rarely write similar enough
data twice. Having random oriented database data and
sequential-oriented database log data on the same volume groups, it
seems to me this was caus
>
> OK, spun down the drives again. Here's that output:
>
> http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jfh/zfs/threads
I just realized that I changed the configuration, so that doesn't reflect
a system with spares, sorry.
However, I reinitialized the pool and spun down one of the drives and
everything is wo
I know this isn't necessarily ZFS specific, but after I reboot I spin the
drives back
up, but nothing I do (devfsadm, disks, etc) can get them seen again until the
next reboot.
I've got some older scsi drives in an old Andataco Gigaraid enclosure which
I thought supported hot-swap, but I seem una
> >>Do you have a threadlist from the node when it was
> hung ? That would
> >>reveal some info.
> >
> >Unfortunately I don't. Do you mean the output of
> >
> > ::threadlist -v
> >
> Yes. That would be useful.
OK, spun down the drives again. Here's that output:
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~jfh/
David Elefante wrote:
I had this happen on three different motherboards. So it seems that there
should be a procedure in the documentation that states if your BIOS doesn't
support EFI labels than you need to write ZFS to a partition (slice) not the
overlay, causing the BIOS to hang on reading
>I suspect a lack of an MBR could cause some BIOS implementations to
>barf ..
Why?
Zeroed disks don't have that issue either.
What appears to be happening is more that raid controllers attempt
to interpret the data in the EFI label as the proprietary
"hardware raid" labels. At least, it seem
On Nov 29, 2006, at 10:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a problem since how can anyone use ZFS on a PC??? My
motherboard is a newly minted AM2 w/ all the latest firmware. I
disabled boot detection on the sata channels and it still refuses
to boot. I had to purchase an external SATA e
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi Richard,
Originally, my thinking was I'd like drop one member out of a 3 member
RAID-Z and turn it into a RAID-1 zpool.
You would need to destroy the pool to do this -- requiring the data to
be copied twice.
Although, at the moment I'm not sure.
So many optio
I had this happen on three different motherboards. So it seems that there
should be a procedure in the documentation that states if your BIOS doesn't
support EFI labels than you need to write ZFS to a partition (slice) not the
overlay, causing the BIOS to hang on reading the drive on boot up.
On 29/11/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 28/11/06, Terence Patrick Donoghue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a difference - Yep,
>
> 'legacy' tells ZFS to refer to the /etc/vfstab file for FS mounts and
> options
> whereas
> 'none' tells ZFS not to mount the ZFS filesystem at a
Hi Betsy,
Yes, part of this is a documentation problem.
I recently documented the find -inum scenario in the community version
of the admin guide. Please see page 156, (well, for next time) here:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/
We're working on the larger issue as well.
Cindy
>This is a problem since how can anyone use ZFS on a PC??? My motherboard is a
>newly minted AM2 w/
all the latest firmware. I disabled boot detection on the sata channels and
it still refuses to b
oot. I had to purchase an external SATA enclosure to fix the drives. This
seems to me to be a
On 11/30/06, David Elefante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had the same thing happen to me twice on my x86 box. I
installed ZFS (RaidZ) on my enclosure with four drives and
upon reboot the bios hangs upon detection of the newly EFI'd
drives. I've already RMA'd 4 drives to seagate and the new
batc
On 29-Nov-06, at 9:30 AM, David Elefante wrote:
I had the same thing happen to me twice on my x86 box. I installed
ZFS (RaidZ) on my enclosure with four drives and upon reboot the
bios hangs upon detection of the newly EFI'd drives. ... This
seems to me to be a serious problem.
Indeed
On 29-Nov-06, at 8:53 AM, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:48:46PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
Her original configuration wasn't redundant, so she should expect
this kind of manual recovery from time to time. Seems a logical
conclusion to me? Or is this one of those once-in-a-li
I had the same thing happen to me twice on my x86 box. I installed ZFS (RaidZ)
on my enclosure with four drives and upon reboot the bios hangs upon detection
of the newly EFI'd drives. I've already RMA'd 4 drives to seagate and the new
batch was frozen as well. I was suspecting my enclosure,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:48:46PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> Her original configuration wasn't redundant, so she should expect
> this kind of manual recovery from time to time. Seems a logical
> conclusion to me? Or is this one of those once-in-a-lifetime strikes?
That's not an entirely tr
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 10:25:18AM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:48:19PM +, Dick Davies wrote:
> > Just spotted one - is this intentional?
> >
> > You can't delegate a dataset to a zone if mountpoint=legacy.
> > Changing it to 'none' works fine.
> >
> >
> > vera /
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:48:19PM +, Dick Davies wrote:
> Just spotted one - is this intentional?
>
> You can't delegate a dataset to a zone if mountpoint=legacy.
> Changing it to 'none' works fine.
>
>
> vera / # zfs create tank/delegated
> vera / # zfs get mountpoint tank/delegated
>
On 28/11/06, Terence Patrick Donoghue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a difference - Yep,
'legacy' tells ZFS to refer to the /etc/vfstab file for FS mounts and
options
whereas
'none' tells ZFS not to mount the ZFS filesystem at all. Then you would
need to manually mount the ZFS using 'zfs se
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 11:13:02AM -0800, Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 06:06:24PM +, Ceri Davies wrote:
> >
> > But you could presumably get that exact effect by not listing a
> > filesystem in /etc/vfstab.
> >
>
> Yes, but someone could still manually mount the filesystem u
22 matches
Mail list logo
