Each partition in the pool is 320G. the disks only have one partition / disk
Each disk is connected to a separate USB2 port on a X4200 M2.
The scrub took around 6 hrs to complete, which I am told is acceptable (I
was not aware it takes takes so long when I first posted; thanks to those
who replie
eric kustarz wrote:
>
> On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Brian D. Horn wrote:
>
>> Take a look at CR 6634371. It's worse than you probably thought.
>
> The only place i see ZFS mentioned in that bug report is regarding
> z_mapcnt. Its being atomically inc/dec in zfs_addmap()/zfs_delmap() -
> so thos
Answering my own post :)
I ran zpool scrub which solved it:
weblogs # zpool status
pool: storage
state: ONLINE
scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Fri Mar 7 16:01:08 2008
config:
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
storage ONLINE 0 0 0
ra
I replaced a failed disk today, and while the resilvering was running the
system crashed. Once the server was back up the resilvering continued, but
after it completed it is still in degraded mode:
weblogs # zpool status
pool: storage
state: DEGRADED
scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors o
> > zfs send -i z/[EMAIL PROTECTED]z/[EMAIL PROTECTED]| bzip2 -c |\
> >ssh host.com "bzcat | zfs recv -v -F -d z"
>
> Since I see 'bzip2' mentioned here (a rather slow compressor), I
> should mention that based on a recommendation from a friend, I gave a
> compressor called 'lzop' (http
2008/3/7, Paul Kraus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:56 PM, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1. In zfs can you currently add more disks to an existing raidz? This is
> important to me
> > as i slowly add disks to my system one at a time.
> >
> > No, but solaris and linux ra
Mark J Musante wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Paul Raines wrote:
>
>
>> zfs create -o quota=131G -o reserv=131G -o recsize=8K zpool1/itgroup_001
>>
>> and this is still running now. truss on the process shows nothing. I
>> don't know how to debug it beyond that. I thought I would ask for any
>>
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:25:21PM -0800, David Pacheco wrote:
> Stuart Anderson wrote:
> >
> >It is also interesting to note that this system is now making negative
> >progress. I can understand the remaining time estimate going up with
> >time, but what does it mean for the % complete number to g
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:56 PM, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. In zfs can you currently add more disks to an existing raidz? This is
> > important to me
> as i slowly add disks to my system one at a time.
>
> No, but solaris and linux raid5 can do this (in linux, grow with mdadm).
> > 2. in a raidz do all the disks have to be the same size?
>
>
> I think this one has been answered, but I'll add/ask this: I'm not sure what
> would
> happen if you had 3x 320gb and 3x 1tb in a 6 disk raidz array. I know you'd
> have a
> 6 * 320gb array, but I don't know if the unused space
Well, as is probably obvious I am pretty new to Solaris and don't really
know these tools.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # ps -f -p 3056
UID PID PPID CSTIME TTY TIME CMD
root 3056 3041 0 12:05:08 pts/1 0:00 zfs create -o quota=131G -o
reserv=131G -o recsize=8K zpool1/it
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Paul Raines wrote:
> zfs create -o quota=131G -o reserv=131G -o recsize=8K zpool1/itgroup_001
>
> and this is still running now. truss on the process shows nothing. I
> don't know how to debug it beyond that. I thought I would ask for any
> info from this list before I just
We have a Sun Fire X4500 (Thumper) with 48 750GB SATA drives being used as an
NFS server. My original plan was to reinstall Linux on it but after getting
it and playing around with zfs I decided to give Solaris a try.
I have created over 30 zfs filesystems so far and exported them via NFS and
On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Brian D. Horn wrote:
> Take a look at CR 6634371. It's worse than you probably thought.
The only place i see ZFS mentioned in that bug report is regarding
z_mapcnt. Its being atomically inc/dec in zfs_addmap()/zfs_delmap()
- so those are ok.
In zfs_frlock(), te
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 01:52:45AM -0500, Rob Logan wrote:
> > Because then I have to compute yesterday's date to do the
> > incremental dump.
>
> snaps=15
> today=`date +%j`
> # to change the second day of the year from 002 to 2
> today=`expr $today + 0`
Er, can't this be confused with octal
Randy Bias wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Rob Logan wrote:
>> Since I see 'bzip2' mentioned here (a rather slow compressor), I
>> should mention that based on a recommendation from a friend, I gave a
>> compressor called 'lzop' (http://www.lzop.or
On Mar 7, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Rob Logan wrote:
> Since I see 'bzip2' mentioned here (a rather slow compressor), I
> should mention that based on a recommendation from a friend, I gave a
> compressor called 'lzop' (http://www.lzop.org/) a try due to its
>
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Brian D. Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you look at the contents of the CR it does say that. However there
> are something like 200 instances and of those perhaps one or two
> dozen are NOT statistics. A few examples from around the kernel
> were pointed
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Rob Logan wrote:
>
> zfs send -i z/[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | bzip2 -c |\
> ssh host.com "bzcat | zfs recv -v -F -d z"
> zfs send -i z/[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | bzip2 -c |\
> ssh host.com "bzcat | zfs recv -v -F -d z"
> zfs send -i z/[EMAIL PRO
If you look at the contents of the CR it does say that. However there
are something like 200 instances and of those perhaps one or two
dozen are NOT statistics. A few examples from around the kernel
were pointed out. (interrupt handling, NIC driver, ZFS, ...)
This message posted from opensol
It isn't a simple as getting an old stale value. You can get a totally
incorrect
value. Example:
Let us assume a monotonically increased 64-bit values which at the start
of this discussion is: 0x (32-bits 0, 32-bits 1).
The 32-bit kernel goes to read the 64-bit value and does s
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:29:46AM -0500, Rob Logan wrote:
> > ZFS is not 32-bit safe.
>
> while this is kinda true, if the systems has 2G or less of ram
> it shouldn't be an issue other than poor performance for lack of
> ARC.
So what happens if you have a 32-bit machine with 4GB RAM like I do?
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:48:05AM -0500, Rob Logan wrote:
> > have 4x500G disks in a RAIDZ. I'd like to repurpose [...] as the second
> > half of a mirror in a machine going into colo.
>
> rsync or zfs send -R the 128G to the machine going to the colo
And this is what I ended up doing. So mu
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 02:07:09PM +0100, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>
> I don't know how to change the ARC sise, but use this to increase
> kernel addres space:
>
> eeprom kernelbase=0x5000
Ah ha, that's what I was thinking about.
> Your user address space will shrink when you do that.
Yes,
This might be a daft question, but is there any way to configure Solaris to
notify us when a disk has finished resilvering?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/
>Brian D. Horn wrote:
>> Take a look at CR 6634371. It's worse than you probably thought.
>>
>
>Actually, almost all of the problems noted in that bug are statistics.
But not exactly all and some are used for othe rpurposes.
And some of the other values will never exceed 32 bit in 32 bit sys
26 matches
Mail list logo
