Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

+1 On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Paul Schlie wrote: > It also wouldn't be a bad idea for ZFS to also verify drives designated as > hot spares in fact have sufficient capacity to be compatible replacements > for particular configurations, prior to actually being critically required > (as if dr

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

It also wouldn't be a bad idea for ZFS to also verify drives designated as hot spares in fact have sufficient capacity to be compatible replacements for particular configurations, prior to actually being critically required (as if drives otherwise appearing to have equivalent capacity may not, it w

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

not quite .. it's 16KB at the front and 8MB back of the disk (16384 sectors) for the Solaris EFI - so you need to zero out both of these of course since these drives are <1TB you i find it's easier to format to SMI (vtoc) .. with format -e (choose SMI, label, save, validate - then choose EFI

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

yes, that's exactly what I did. the issue is that I can't get the "corrected" label to be written once I've zero'd the drive. I get and error from fdisk that apparently views the backup label -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Would this work? (to get rid of an EFI label). dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/dsk/ bs=1024k count=1 Then use format format might complain that the disk is not labeled. You can then label the disk. Dale Antonius wrote: > can you recommend a walk-through for this process, or a bit

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

can you recommend a walk-through for this process, or a bit more of a description? I'm not quite sure how I'd use that utility to repair the EFI label -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org h

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Grab the AOE driver and pull "aoelabinit" out of the package.They wrote it just for forcing EFI or Sun labels onto disks when the normal Solaris tools get in the way. coraid's website looks like it's broken at the moment, so you may need to find it elsewhere on the web. -- This message po

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

I believe this is an fdisk issue. But I don't think any of the fdisk engineers hang out on this forum. You might try partitioning the disk on another OS. -- richard Antonius wrote: > I'll attach 2 files of output from 2 disks: > > c4d0 is a current member of the zpool that is a "sibling" (as

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

>so you're suggesting I buy 750s to replace the 500s. then if a 750 fails buy >another bigger drive again? Have you filed a bug/rfe to fix this in ZFS in future? Anyway, you only need to change the 750GB drives if: - all 500GBs drives are replace by 750GB disks - and they're all

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

>The user DEFINITELY isn't expecting 5 bytes, or what you meant to >say 5000 bytes, they're expecting 500GB. You know, 536,870,912,000 >bytes. But even if the drive mfg's calculated it correctly, they wouldn't >even be getting that due to filesystem overhead. Then you have a ve

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

you mentioned one, so what do you recomend as a workaround?. I've tried re-initialing the disks on another system's HW RAID controller, but still get the same error. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@op

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

so you're suggesting I buy 750s to replace the 500s. then if a 750 fails buy another bigger drive again? the drives are RMA replacements for the other disks that faulted in the array before. they are the same brand, model and model number, apparently not so under the label though, but no way I

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

>The user DEFINITELY isn't expecting 5 bytes, or what you meant to say >5000 >bytes, they're expecting 500GB. You know, 536,870,912,000 bytes. But even if >the drive mfg's >calculated it correctly, they wouldn't even be getting that due to filesystem >overhead. I doubt there

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Moore, Joe wrote: > > Other storage vendors have specific compatibility requirements for the > disks you are "allowed" to install in their chassis. > And again, the reason for those requirements is 99% about making money, not a technical one. If you go back far

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> "jm" == Moore, Joe writes: jm> Sysadmins should not be required to RTFS. I never said they were. The comparison was between hardware RAID and ZFS, not between two ZFS alternatives. The point: other systems' behavior is enitely secret. Therefore, secret opaque undiscussed right-sizin

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

[I hate to keep dragging this thread forward, but...] Moore, Joe wrote: > And there is no way to change this after the pool has been created, > since after that time, the disk size can't be changed. So whatever > policy is used by default, it is very important to get it right. Today, vdev size c

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Miles Nordin wrote: > > "mj" == Moore, Joe writes: > > mj> For a ZFS pool, (until block pointer rewrite capability) this > mj> would have to be a pool-create-time parameter. > > naw. You can just make ZFS do it all the time, like the other storage > vendors do. no parameters. Ot

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> "mj" == Moore, Joe writes: mj> For a ZFS pool, (until block pointer rewrite capability) this mj> would have to be a pool-create-time parameter. naw. You can just make ZFS do it all the time, like the other storage vendors do. no parameters. You can invent parameter-free ways of

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> > Ross wrote: > >> The problem is they might publish these numbers, but we > really have > >> no way of controlling what number manufacturers will > choose to use > >> in the future. > >> > >> If for some reason future 500GB drives all turn out to be slightly > >> smaller than the current

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Adam Leventhal wrote: > > And again, I say take a look at the market today, figure out a > percentage, > > and call it done. I don't think you'll find a lot of users crying foul > over > > losing 1% of their drive space when they don't already cry foul over the >

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

So the place we are arriving is to push the RFE for shrinkable pools? Warning the user about the difference in actual drive size, then offering to shrink the pool to allow a smaller device seems like a nice solution to this problem. The ability to shrink pools might be very useful in other situat

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> And again, I say take a look at the market today, figure out a percentage, > and call it done. I don't think you'll find a lot of users crying foul over > losing 1% of their drive space when they don't already cry foul over the > false advertising that is drive sizes today. Perhaps it's quaint,

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Adam Leventhal wrote: > Drive vendors, it would seem, have an incentive to make their "500GB" > drives > as small as possible. Should ZFS then choose some amount of padding at the > end of each device and chop it off as insurance against a slightly smaller > drive

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Tim wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Bob Friesenhahn > mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us>> wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Adam Leventhal wrote: > > > Are you telling me zfs is deficient to the point it can't > handle basic > right-sizing like

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 01:35:22PM -0600, Tim wrote: > > > Are you telling me zfs is deficient to the point it can't handle basic > > > right-sizing like a 15$ sata raid adapter? > > > > How do there $15 sata raid adapters solve the problem? The more details you > > could provide the better obvious

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Adam Leventhal wrote: > >> >> Are you telling me zfs is deficient to the point it can't handle basic >>> right-sizing like a 15$ sata raid adapter? >>> >> >> How do there $15 sata raid a

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Adam Leventhal wrote: > > Sorry, I must have missed your point. I thought that you were saying that > HDS, NetApp, and EMC had a different model. Were you merely saying that the > software in those vendors' products operates differently than ZFS? > Gosh, was the

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Adam Leventhal wrote: > >> Are you telling me zfs is deficient to the point it can't handle basic >> right-sizing like a 15$ sata raid adapter? > > How do there $15 sata raid adapters solve the problem? The more details you > could provide the better obviously. It is really qu

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> > > Since it's done in software by HDS, NetApp, and EMC, that's complete > > > bullshit. Forcing people to spend 3x the money for a "Sun" drive that's > > > identical to the seagate OEM version is also bullshit and a piss-poor > > > answer. > > > > I didn't know that HDS, NetApp, and EMC all all

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

>> Creating a slice, instead of using the whole disk, will cause ZFS to >> not enable write-caching on the underlying device. > Correct. Engineering trade-off. Since most folks don't read the manual, > or the best practices guide, until after they've hit a problem, it is really > just a CYA entr

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Adam Leventhal wrote: > > Since it's done in software by HDS, NetApp, and EMC, that's complete > > bullshit. Forcing people to spend 3x the money for a "Sun" drive that's > > identical to the seagate OEM version is also bullshit and a piss-poor > > answer. > > I

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> "edm" == Eric D Mudama writes: edm> If, instead of having ZFS manage these differences, a user edm> simply created slices that were, say, 98% if you're willing to manually create slices, you should be able to manually enable the write cache, too, while you're in there, so I wouldn't

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Jim Dunham wrote: > Richard, > >> Ross wrote: >> >>> The problem is they might publish these numbers, but we really have >>> no way of controlling what number manufacturers will choose to use >>> in the future. >>> >>> If for some reason future 500GB drives all turn out to be slightly

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> Since it's done in software by HDS, NetApp, and EMC, that's complete > bullshit. Forcing people to spend 3x the money for a "Sun" drive that's > identical to the seagate OEM version is also bullshit and a piss-poor > answer. I didn't know that HDS, NetApp, and EMC all allow users to replace the

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Richard, > Ross wrote: >> The problem is they might publish these numbers, but we really have >> no way of controlling what number manufacturers will choose to use >> in the future. >> >> If for some reason future 500GB drives all turn out to be slightly >> smaller than the current ones you'

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Ross wrote: > The problem is they might publish these numbers, but we really have no way of > controlling what number manufacturers will choose to use in the future. > > If for some reason future 500GB drives all turn out to be slightly smaller > than the current ones you're going to be stuck. R

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

I'm going waaay out on a limb here, as a non-programmer...but... Since the source is open, maybe community members should organize and work on some sort of sizing algorithm? I can certainly imagine Sun deciding to do this in the future - I can also imagine that it's not at the top of Sun's priori

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

The problem is they might publish these numbers, but we really have no way of controlling what number manufacturers will choose to use in the future. If for some reason future 500GB drives all turn out to be slightly smaller than the current ones you're going to be stuck. Reserving 1-2% of spac

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

yes, it's the same make and model as most of the other disks in the zpool and reports the same number of sectors -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/lis

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18 at 15:00, Tim wrote: > If you're so concerned with the storage *lying* or *hiding* space, I > assume you're leading the charge at Sun to properly advertise drive sizes, > right? Because the 1TB drive I can buy from Sun today is in no way, > shape, or form able to store 1TB o

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > Tim wrote: > It is naive to think that different storage array vendors > would care about people trying to use another array vendors > disks in their arrays. In fact, you should get a flat, impersonal, "not supported" response. > But we ar

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Tim wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Richard Elling > wrote: > > comment at the bottom... > DIY. Personally, I'd be more upset if ZFS reserved any sectors > for "some potential swap I might want to do later, but may never > need to do." If

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > comment at the bottom... > DIY. Personally, I'd be more upset if ZFS reserved any sectors > for "some potential swap I might want to do later, but may never > need to do." If you want to reserve some space for swappage, DIY. > > As others

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

comment at the bottom... Tim wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Eric D. Mudama > mailto:edmud...@bounceswoosh.org>> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18 at 13:43, Tim wrote: > > You look at the size of the drive and you take a set percentage > off... If > it's a "LUN"

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Yes, I agree, command interface is more efficient and more risky than GUI. You will have to be very careful when doing that. Best, z - Original Message - From: "Al Tobey" To: Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fail

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

I ran into a bad label causing this once. Usually the s2 slice is a good bet for your whole disk device, but if it's EFI labeled, you need to use p0 (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I like to zero the first few megs of a drive before doing any of this stuff. This will destroy any data. Ob

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18 at 13:43, Tim wrote: > >> You look at the size of the drive and you take a set percentage off... >> If >> it's a "LUN" and it's so far off it still can't be added with the >> percentage that works across the board for EVER

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

ent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: >> Most drives are sold with two significant digits in the size: 320 GB, >> 400 GB, 640GB, 1.0 TB, etc. I don't see

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18 at 13:43, Tim wrote: > You look at the size of the drive and you take a set percentage off... If > it's a "LUN" and it's so far off it still can't be added with the > percentage that works across the board for EVERYTHING ELSE, you change the > size of the LUN at the storage

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: > > Most drives are sold with two significant digits in the size: 320 GB, > > 400 GB, 640GB, 1.0 TB, etc. I don't see this changing any time > > particularly soon; un

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: > Most drives are sold with two significant digits in the size: 320 GB, > 400 GB, 640GB, 1.0 TB, etc. I don't see this changing any time > particularly soon; unless someone starts selling a 1.25 TB drive or > something, two digits will suffice. Even then,

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 18:19, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > What do you propose that OpenSolaris should do about this? Take drive size, divide by 100, round down to two significant digits. Floor to a multiple of that size. This method wastes no more than 1% of the disk space, and gives a reasonable (

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 1:19 PM To: Will Murnane Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: > > That's easy to say, but what if there were no larger alternative? > > Suppose I have a pool composed of those 1.5TB Seagate disks, and > > Hitachi puts out some o

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Adam Leventhal wrote: > Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every major >> storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I have an old maxtor >> drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly larger than every other mfg >> on the

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: > That's easy to say, but what if there were no larger alternative? > Suppose I have a pool composed of those 1.5TB Seagate disks, and > Hitachi puts out some of the "same" capacity that are actually > slightly smaller. A drive fails in my array, I buy a Hi

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:17 AM, wrote: > > > >Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every > major > >storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I have an old maxtor > >drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly larger than every other mfg > >on the market?

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 16:51, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > I appreciate that in these times of financial hardship that you can > not afford a 750GB drive to replace the oversized 500GB drive. Sorry > to hear about your situation. That's easy to say, but what if there were no larger alternative? Supp

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Tim wrote: > Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every major > storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I have an old maxtor > drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly larger than every other mfg > on the market? You know, the one w

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

>Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every major >storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I have an old maxtor >drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly larger than every other mfg >on the market? You know, the one who is no longer making their own d

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why > every major storage vendor right-sizes drives. What happens if I > have an old maxtor drive in my pool whose "500g" is just slightly > larger than every other mfg on the market? You know, the one who is > no longer making

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 5:18 AM, wrote: > > > >So you're saying zfs does absolutely no right-sizing? That sounds like a > >bad idea all around... > > You can use a bigger disk; NOT a smaller disk. > > Casper > > Right, which is an absolutely piss poor design decision and why every major storage

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

meh - Original Message - From: "Antonius" To: Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error > If so what should I do to remedy that? just reformat it? > -- > This message posted f

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

If so what should I do to remedy that? just reformat it? -- 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] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

>So you're saying zfs does absolutely no right-sizing? That sounds like a >bad idea all around... You can use a bigger disk; NOT a smaller disk. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/list

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:18:35 PST Antonius wrote: Maybe the other disk has an EFI label? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv105 ++ + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) __

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Volume name = <> ascii name = bytes/sector= 512 sectors = 976760063 accessible sectors = 976760030 Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector 0usrwm 256 465.75GB 976743646 1 unassignedwm

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

Tim wrote: > > Are you 100% sure it has the exact same number of sectors? While more > recently, most vendors have settled on the IDEMA calculation for > number of available sectors, some drives sold into retail and/or some > models may not follow this, leaving you with a slightly

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

> Are you 100% sure it has the exact same number of sectors? While more > recently, most vendors have settled on the IDEMA calculation for > number of available sectors, some drives sold into retail and/or some > models may not follow this, leaving you with a slightly different > number. > > The "

Re: [zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

On Sat, Jan 17 at 18:58, Antonius wrote: >I'm having an issue replacing a failed 500GB disk with another new one with >the error that the disk is too small. The problem is that it isn't. Is there >any help anyone can offer here? > >ascii name = >bytes/sector = 512 >sectors = 976760063 >acces

[zfs-discuss] replace same sized disk fails with too small error

I'm having an issue replacing a failed 500GB disk with another new one with the error that the disk is too small. The problem is that it isn't. Is there any help anyone can offer here? I've tried adding it once set as a spare or seperate from the pool and with different formats and configs all