On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:22 +, Moritz Willers wrote:
> The host identity had - of course - changed with the new motherboard
> and it no longer recognised the zpool as its own. 'zpool import -f
> rpool' to take ownership, reboot and it all worked no problem (which
> was amazing in itself as
sed a majority of my
snapshots to do this:
receiving incremental stream of pdxfilu01/vault/0...@20091212-01:15:00
into pdxfilu02/vault/0...@20091212-01:15:00
received 13.8KB stream in 491 seconds (28B/sec)
De-dupe is NOT enabled on any pool, but I have upgraded to the newest
ZFS pool version,
Hi!
My OpenSolaris 2009.06 box runs into kernel panics almost every day. There are
4 FireWire drives, as a RaidZ pool attached to a MacMini. The panic seems to be
related to this known bug:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6835533
Since there are no known workarounds,
Hi,
I'm just about to build a ZFS system as a home file server in raidz, but I
have one question - pre-empting the need to replace one of the drives if it
ever fails.
How on earth do you determine the actual physical drive that has failed ?
I've got the while zpool status thing worked out, but h
Hi!
I tried to add an other FiweFire Drive to my existing four devices but it
turned out, that the OpenSolaris IEEE1394 support doen't seem to be
well-engineered.
After not recognizing the new device and exporting and importing the existing
zpool, I get this zpool status:
pool: tank
state:
Jens Elkner wrote:
Hi,
just got a quote from our campus reseller, that readzilla and logzilla
are not available for the X4540 - hmm strange Anyway, wondering
whether it is possible/supported/would make sense to use a Sun Flash
Accelerator F20 PCIe Card in a X4540 instead of 2.5" SSDs?
If
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Brent Jones wrote:
I've noticed some extreme performance penalties simply by using snv_128
Does the 'zpool scrub' rate seem similar to before? Do you notice any
read performance problems? What happens if you send to /dev/null
rather than via ssh?
Bob
--
Bob Friesenha
This is especially important, because if you have 1 failed drive, and you
pull the wrong drive, now you have 2 failed drives. And that could destroy
the dataset (depending on whether you have raidz-1 or raidz-2)
Whenever possible, always get the hotswappable hardware, that will blink a
red lig
As to whether it makes sense (as opposed to two distinct physical
devices), you would have read cache hits competing with log writes for
bandwidth. I doubt both will be pleased :-)
On 12/12/09, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Jens Elkner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just got a quote from our campus reseller, th
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Paul Bruce wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm just about to build a ZFS system as a home file server in raidz, but I
> have one question - pre-empting the need to replace one of the drives if it
> ever fails.
> How on earth do you determine the actual physical drive that has faile
On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:53 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:22 +, Moritz Willers wrote:
The host identity had - of course - changed with the new motherboard
and it no longer recognised the zpool as its own. 'zpool import -f
rpool' to take ownership, reboot and it all wor
I've found that when I build a system, it's worth the initial effort
to install drives one by one to see how they get mapped to names. Then
I put labels on the drives and SATA cables. If there were room to
label the actual SATA ports on the motherboard and cards, I would.
While this isn't foolproo
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 09:08 -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:53 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:22 +, Moritz Willers wrote:
> >
> >> The host identity had - of course - changed with the new motherboard
> >> and it no longer recognised the zpool as
Am I missing something?
I have had monthly,weekly,daily,hourly,frequent snapshots since March 2009.
Now with new b129 I lost all of them.
>From zpool history:
2009-12-12.20:30:02 zfs destroy -r
rpool/ROOT/b...@zfs-auto-snap:weekly-2009-11-26-09:28
2009-12-12.20:30:03 zfs destroy -r
rpool/ROOT/b
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, dick hoogendijk wrote:
Because, like I said, I always understood it was very difficult to
change disks to another system and run the installed solaris version on
that new hardware.
A place where I used to work had several thousand Sun workstations and
I noticed that if a
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 18:08, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:53 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:22 +, Moritz Willers wrote:
>>
>>> The host identity had - of course - changed with the new motherboard
>>> and it no longer recognised the zpool as its own
On 12-Dec-09, at 1:32 PM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 18:08, Richard Elling
wrote:
On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:53 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:22 +, Moritz Willers wrote:
The host identity had - of course - changed with the new
motherboard
and
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Brent Jones wrote:
>
>> I've noticed some extreme performance penalties simply by using snv_128
>
> Does the 'zpool scrub' rate seem similar to before? Do you notice any read
> performance problems? What happens if yo
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
> I would suggest something like this: While the system is still on, if the
> failed drive is at least writable *a little bit* … then you can “dd
> if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rdsk/FailedDiskDevice bs=1024 count=1024” … and then
> after the syste
On Dec 12, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 18:08, Richard Elling > wrote:
On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:53 AM, dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:22 +, Moritz Willers wrote:
The host identity had - of course - changed with the new
motherboard
an
Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
As to whether it makes sense (as opposed to two distinct physical
devices), you would have read cache hits competing with log writes for
bandwidth. I doubt both will be pleased :-)
As usual it depends on your workload. In many real-life scenarios the
bandwidth probably won
Hi,
The compressratio property seems to be a ratio of compression for a
given dataset calculated in such a way so all data in it (compressed or
not) is taken into account.
The dedupratio property on the other hand seems to be taking into
account only dedupped data in a pool.
So for example if
It's been over 72 hours since my last import attempt.
System still is non-responsive. No idea if it's doing anything
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman
Most manufacturers have a utility available that sets this behavior.
For WD drives, it's called WDTLER.EXE. You have to make a bootable USB stick to
run the app, but it is simple to change the setting to the enterprise behavior.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
My system was pingable again, unfortunately I disabled all services such as
ssh. My console was still hung, but I was wondering if I had hung USB crap
(since I use a USB keyboard and everything had been hung for days).
I force rebooted and the pool was not imported :(. I started the process off
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Brent Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Brent Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I've noticed some extreme performance penalties simply by using snv_128
>>
>> Does the 'zpool scrub' rate seem similar to before? Do
26 matches
Mail list logo
