Hi Laurent,
I was able to reproduce on it on a Solaris 10 5/09 system.
The problem is fixed in a current Nevada bits and also in
the upcoming Solaris 10 release.
The bug fix that integrated this change might be this one:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6328632
zpool o
Thanks a lot, Cindy!
Let me know how it goes or if I can provide more info.
Part of the bad luck I've had with that set, is that it reports such errors
about once a month, then everything goes back to normal again. So I'm pretty
sure that I'll be able to try to offline the disk someday.
Lauren
> You're right, from the documentation it definitely
> should work. Still, it doesn't. At least not in
> Solaris 10. But i am not a zfs-developer, so this
> should probably answered by them. I will give it a
> try with a recent OpneSolaris-VM and check, wether
> this works in newer implementations
Hi Laurent,
Yes, you should able to offline a faulty device in a redundant
configuration as long as enough devices are available to keep
the pool redundant.
On my Solaris Nevada system (latest bits), injecting a fault
into a disk in a RAID-Z configuration and then offlining a disk
works as expec
Great news, thanks Tom!
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
FYI:
In b117 it works as expected and stated in the documentation.
Tom
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
You're right, from the documentation it definitely should work. Still, it
doesn't. At least not in Solaris 10. But i am not a zfs-developer, so this
should probably answered by them. I will give it a try with a recent
OpneSolaris-VM and check, wether this works in newer implementations of zfs.
> You could offline the disk if [b]this[/b] disk (not
> the pool) had a replica. Nothing wrong with the
> documentation. Hmm, maybe it is little misleading
> here. I walked into the same "trap".
I apologize for being daft here, but I don't find any ambiguity in the
documentation.
This is explicit
You could offline the disk if [b]this[/b] disk (not the pool) had a replica.
Nothing wrong with the documentation. Hmm, maybe it is little misleading here.
I walked into the same "trap".
The pool is not using the disk anymore anyway, so (from the zfs point of view)
there is no need to offline t
I don't have a replacement, but I don't want the disk to be used right now by
the volume: how do I do that?
This is exactly the point of the offline command as explained in the
documentation: disabling unreliable hardware, or removing it temporarily.
So this is a huge bug of the documentation?
W
You can't replace it because this disk is still a valid member of the pool,
although it is marked faulty.
Put in a replacement disk, add this to the pool and replace the faulty one with
the new disk.
Regards,
Tom
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Yup, just hit exactly the same myself. I have a feeling this faulted disk is
affecting performance, so tried to remove or offline it:
$ zpool iostat -v 30
capacity operationsbandwidth
pool used avail read write read write
-- - - - --
(As I'm not subscribed to this list, you can keep me in CC:, but I'll check out
the Jive thread)
Hi all,
I've seen this questions asked several times, but there wasn't any solution
provided.
I'm trying to offline a faulted device in a RAID-Z2 device on Solaris 10. This
is done according to the
13 matches
Mail list logo
