I currently have a 7x1.5tb raidz1.
I want to add "phase 2" which is another 7x1.5tb raidz1
Can I add the second phase to the first phase and basically have two
raid5's striped (in raid terms?)
Yes, I probably should upgrade the zpool format too. Currently running
snv_104. Also should upgrade to
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Michael Shadle wrote:
> I currently have a 7x1.5tb raidz1.
>
> I want to add "phase 2" which is another 7x1.5tb raidz1
>
> Can I add the second phase to the first phase and basically have two
> raid5's striped (in raid terms?)
Yes, that's how it's done.
> Yes, I
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Peter Tribble wrote:
> zpool add tank raidz1 disk_1 disk_2 disk_3 ...
>
> (The syntax is just like creating a pool, only with add instead of create.)
so I can add individual disks to the existing tank zpool anytime i want?
> It makes perfect sense. My thumpers h
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Michael Shadle wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Peter Tribble
> wrote:
>
>> zpool add tank raidz1 disk_1 disk_2 disk_3 ...
>>
>> (The syntax is just like creating a pool, only with add instead of create.)
>
> so I can add individual disks to the existin
Harry wrote:
>> However I hit a snag right away. Pulled a 200gb added a 750 but on
>> boot when I get to that screen I see:
>>
>>Press F3 to enter configuration utility
>>Primary channel: WDC WD200-blah-blah 190782 MB
>> Primary secondary: WDC WD750-blah-blah
>>
>> Note the
>I mentioned that pressing F3 doesn't do anything. That is, I have
>now way to enter the configuration tool.
Does it work when you first remove the 200GB drive, reboot, press F3
and see what you can do in that configuration tool.
It is possible that it first needs to forget the 200GB drive.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Peter Tribble wrote:
>> so I can add individual disks to the existing tank zpool anytime i want?
>
> Yes, but you wouldn't want to do that. (And zpool might not like it.)
>
> If you just add a disk, it just gets added as a new device. So you have
> unprotected sto
casper@sun.com writes:
> Does it work when you first remove the 200GB drive, reboot, press F3
> and see what you can do in that configuration tool.
> It is possible that it first needs to forget the 200GB drive.
Might be the way. Seems likely given the way you've shown how zfs can
remembe
casper@sun.com writes:
>>I mentioned that pressing F3 doesn't do anything. That is, I have
>>now way to enter the configuration tool.
>
>
> Does it work when you first remove the 200GB drive, reboot, press F3
> and see what you can do in that configuration tool.
>
> It is possible that it fir
Have you checked the specs of the 1205 to see what maximum drive size
it supports? That's an older card, IIRC, so it might top out at 500gb
or something.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> casper@sun.com writes:
>
>>>I mentioned that pressing F3 doesn't do anything. Tha
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Peter Tribble wrote:
The choice of raidz1 versus raidz2 is another matter. Given that
you've already got raidz1, and you can't (yet) grow that or expand
it to raidz2, then there doesn't seem to be much point to having the
second half of your storage being more protected.
This is true. Unfortunately, in my experience, controller quality is
still very important. ZFS can preserve data all day long, but that
doesn't help much if the controller misbehaves (you may have good data
that can't be retrieved or manipulated properly - it's happened to me
with whitebox hardwa
zfs send/recv *is* faster (especially since b105) than rsync,
especially when you are dealing with lots of small files. rsync has
to check each file, which can take a long time - zfs send/recv just
moves blocks.
2009/3/27 Ahmed Kamal :
> ZFS replication basics at http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Peter Tribble wrote:
>
>>
>> The choice of raidz1 versus raidz2 is another matter. Given that you've
>> already got raidz1, and you can't (yet) grow that or expand it to raidz2,
>> then
Michael Shadle wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Peter Tribble
wrote:
>
>> zpool add tank raidz1 disk_1 disk_2 disk_3 ...
>>
>> (The syntax is just like creating a pool, only with add instead of
create.)
>
> so I can add individual disks to the existing tank zpool anytime i want?
Using th
Blake writes:
> Have you checked the specs of the 1205 to see what maximum drive size
> it supports? That's an older card, IIRC, so it might top out at 500gb
> or something.
I did yes, all it really says is that is supports drives larger than
137gb.
http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/support/sata
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Tim wrote:
#1: yes, there is harm as he may very well run into inconsistent performance
which is a complete PITA to track down when you've got differing raidtypes
underlying a volume.
Inconsistent performance can come from many things, including a single
balky disk drive.
Harry Putnam writes:
> Once booted up I see the recurring message where I should see a login
> prompt (I'm setup to boot into console mode).
>
> ata_id_common Busy Status 0xfe error 0x0
>
> Repeated 4 times, then after maybe a 2-3 minute wait the regular login
> prompt appears.
>
> There is s
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Jonathan wrote:
This really depends on how valuable your data is. Richard Elling has a
lot of great information about MTTDL here
http://blogs.sun.com/relling/tags/mttdl
Almost any data with a grade higher than "disposable junk" becomes
pretty valuable once you consider t
2009/3/28 Tim :
>> There is no harm from using a raidz2 vdev even if an existing vdev is only
>> raidz1. If raidz2 is an available option then it is wise to choose it. Of
>> course starting out with raidz2 would have been even better.
> #2: raidz2 isn't always "wise" to choose. It's a matter o
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
if i went raidz2 i'd want the entire 14 disk array in it i think.
i'd rather not do a raidz2 with less than 100% of the disks and then a
second raidz1 (or 2) because i'd wind up losing much more disk space.
essentially, i am willing to give up 2 of 14 d
what's the output of 'fmadm faulty'?
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Harry Putnam writes:
>
>> Once booted up I see the recurring message where I should see a login
>> prompt (I'm setup to boot into console mode).
>>
>> ata_id_common Busy Status 0xfe error 0x0
>>
>> Rep
I have a backup system using zfs send/receive (I know there are pros
and cons to that, but it's suitable for what I need).
What I have now is a script which runs daily, do zfs send, compress
and write it to a file, then transfer it with ftp to a remote host. It
does full backup every 1st, and do i
Blake writes:
> what's the output of 'fmadm faulty'?
It hangs for maybe 30 seconds, then returns the prompt.
And again now on this boot, before the console prompt appears I see:
ata_id_common: Busy Status 0xfe error 0x0
Repeated 4 times.
And again, the console prompt is barely usable.
log
> "b" == Blake writes:
b> ZFS can preserve data all day long, but that doesn't help much
b> if the controller misbehaves
the most common kind of controller, or rather driver, misbehavior is
to time out commands to failed drives while ZFS waits inappropriately
long, or to freeze ac
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Tim wrote:
>
>>
>> #1: yes, there is harm as he may very well run into inconsistent
>> performance
>> which is a complete PITA to track down when you've got differing raidtypes
>> underl
* On 28 Mar 2009, Peter Tribble wrote:
> The choice of raidz1 versus raidz2 is another matter. Given that
> you've already got raidz1, and you can't (yet) grow that or expand
> it to raidz2, then there doesn't seem to be much point to having the
> second half of your storage being more protected.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> I have a backup system using zfs send/receive (I know there are pros
> and cons to that, but it's suitable for what I need).
>
> What I have now is a script which runs daily, do zfs send, compress
> and write it to a file, then transfer i
casper@sun.com writes:
>>I mentioned that pressing F3 doesn't do anything. That is, I have
>>now way to enter the configuration tool.
>
>
> Does it work when you first remove the 200GB drive, reboot, press F3
> and see what you can do in that configuration tool.
>
> It is possible that it fir
Blake wrote:
Have you checked the specs of the 1205 to see what maximum drive size
it supports? That's an older card, IIRC, so it might top out at 500gb
or something.
Please stop top-posting to threads where everyone else is
normal-posting, it mucks up the flow of the thread.
Thanks,
--
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have
to turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to be
highly available and I do not need extreme performance like a database
for example. 45mb/sec would even be acceptable.
On Mar 28, 2009, at 10:47 AM, B
Harry Putnam wrote:
I'm starting to think I may have just got the wrong card and should
just throw in the towel and get something known to work with my
hardware.
That sounds like a good plan!
Using older SATA controllers with SATA II drives may work, but there
aren't any guarantees.
--
Ian Collins writes:
> Harry Putnam wrote:
>>
>> I'm starting to think I may have just got the wrong card and should
>> just throw in the towel and get something known to work with my
>> hardware.
>>
>>
> That sounds like a good plan!
>
> Using older SATA controllers with SATA II drives may wor
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have to turn
it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to be highly
available and I do not need extreme performance like a database for example.
45mb/sec would even be acc
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Brent Jones wrote:
> I have since modified some scripts out there, and rolled them into my
> own, you can see it here at pastebin.com:
>
> http://pastebin.com/m3871e478
Thanks Brent.
Your script seems to handle failed replication and locking pretty well.
It doesn
Howard Huntley wrote:
I once installed ZFS on my home Sun Blade 100 and it worked fine on the
sun blade 100 running solaris 10. I later reinstalled Solaris 10 09
version
and created zpool which is not visible using the the java control
panel.
When I attempt to run the Java control pan
On 03/28/09 20:01, Harry Putnam wrote:
Finding a sataII card is proving to be very difficult. The reason is
that I only have PCI no PCI express. I haven't see a single one
listed as SATAII compatible and have spent a bit time googling.
It's even worse if you have an old SPARC system. We've h
On Mar 28, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn > wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I
have to turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not
need to be highly available and I do not need extreme perform
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have
to turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to
be highly available and I do not need extreme performance like a
database for example.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
>
> Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have to
>> turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to be highly
>> availa
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
>
> Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have to
>> turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to be highly
>> availa
41 matches
Mail list logo
