Hi,
One of my colleagues was confused by the output of 'zpool status' on a pool
where a hot spare is being resilvered in after a drive failure:
$ zpool status data
pool: data
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will
continue to function,
Matthias Appel wrote:
> I am using 2x Gbit Ethernet an 4 Gig of RAM,
> 4 Gig of RAM for the iRAM should be more than sufficient (0.5 times RAM and
> 10s worth of IO)
>
> I am aware that this RAM is non-ECC so I plan to mirror the ZIL device.
>
> Any considerations for this setupWill it work a
Erin wrote:
> How do we spread the data that is stored on the first two raidz2 devices
> across all three so that when we continue to write data to the storage pool,
> we will get the added performance of writing to all three devices instead of
> just the empty new one?
All new writes will be spre
Erin wrote:
> The issue that we have is that the first two vdevs were almost full, so we
> will quickly be in the state where all writes will be on the 3rd vdev. It
> would
> also be useful to have better read performance, but I figured that solving the
> write performance optimization would also
On 12/ 4/09 02:06 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Hey folks.
>
> I've looked around quite a bit, and I can't find something like this:
>
> I have a bunch of older systems which use Ultra320 SCA hot-swap
> connectors for their internal drives. (e.g. v20z and similar)
>
> I'd love to be able to use mode
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>>
>> new CKSUM errors
>> are being found. There are zero READ or WRITE error counts,
>> though.
>>
>> Should we be worrie
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> Hello, while browsing around today I stumbled across
> "Seagate Pipeline HD" HDDs lineup (i.e. ST2000VM002).
> Did any ZFS users have any experience with them?
> http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/consumer_electronics/pipeline/
> http://w
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Matt Harrison
wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I've got a pool thats got a single raidz1 vdev. I've just some more disks in
> and I want to replace that raidz1 with a three-way mirror. I was thinking
> I'd just make a new pool and copy everything across, but then of course I'v
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Matt Harrison
wrote:
> Thanks Eric, however seeing as I can't have two pools named 'tank', I'll
> have to name the new one something else. I believe I will be able to rename
> it afterwards, but I just wanted to check first. I'd have to have to spend
> hours changin
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Paul Kraus wrote:
> So is there a way to read these real I/Ops numbers ?
>
> iostat is reporting 600-800 I/Ops peak (1 second sample) for these
> 7200 RPM SATA drives. If the drives are doing aggregation, then how to
> tell what is really going on ?
I've always as
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Apparently my OS is new enough (b 147 )... since the command
> is known. Very nice... but where is the documentation?
>
> `man zfs' has no hits on a grep for diff (except different..)
>
> Ahh never mind... I found:
> http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Ding Honghui wrote:
> I expect to have 14*931/1024=12.7TB zpool space, but actually, it only have
> 12.6TB zpool space:
> # zpool list
> NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
> datapool 12.6T 9.96T 2.66T 78% ONLINE -
> #
>
> And I expect th
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Has there been any change to the server hardware with respect to number of
> drives since ZFS has come out? Many of the servers around still have an even
> number of drives (2, 4) etc. and it seems far from optimal from a ZFS
> standpoint.
Wi
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> Most drives should work well for a pure SSD pool. I have a postgresql
> database on a linux box on a mirrored set of C300s. AFAIK ZFS doesn't yet
> support TRIM, so that can be an issue. Apart from that, it should work well.
Interest
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Eric Sproul wrote:
>> Interesting-- what is the suspected impact of not having TRIM support?
>
> There shouldn't be much, since zfs isn't changing data in place. Any
> drive with r
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> Most "enterprise" SSDs use something like 30% for spare area. So a
> drive with 128MiB (base 2) of flash will have 100MB (base 10) of
> available storage. A consumer level drive will have ~ 6% spare, or
> 128MiB of flash and 128MB of available
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Orvar Korvar
wrote:
> If you go the LSI2008 route, avoid raid functionality as it messes up ZFS.
> Flash the BIOS to JBOD mode.
You don't even have to do that with the LSI SAS2 cards. They no
longer ship alternate IT-mode firmware for these like they did for the
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Carsten Aulbert
wrote:
> Has nayone any idea what's going on here?
Carsten,
It will be more visible at the VFS layer with fsstat. The following
one-liner will pull out all ZFS filesystems and pass the list as
arguments to fsstat so you can see activity broken dow
istrators
> are largely interested in system administration issues.
+1 to those items. I'd also like to hear about how people are maintaining
offsite DR copies of critical data with ZFS. Just send/recv, or something a
little more "live"?
Eric
--
Eric Sproul
Lead Site Rel
the pools are
not boot pools. ZFS will automatically label the disks with EFI labels when you
give a whole disk (no 's#') as an argument.
Hope this helps,
Eric
--
Eric Sproul
Lead Site Reliability Engineer
OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc.
Web Applications & Internet Architectures
ht
the output. The first one creates the 'oradata' pool with two
mirrors of two drives each. Data will be dynamically balanced across both
mirrors, effectively the same as RAID1+0. The second one creates a simple
mirror of two disks (RAID1).
Regards,
Eric
--
Eric Sproul
Lead Site Reliabili
casper@sun.com wrote:
> Most of the "Intellispeed" drives are just 5400rpm; I suppose that this
> drive can deliver 150MB/s on sequential access.
I have the earlier generation of the 2TB WD RE4 drive in one of my systems.
With Bonwick's diskqual script I saw an average of 119 MB/s across 14 d
Adam Leventhal wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> After investigating this problem a bit I'd suggest avoiding deploying
> RAID-Z
> until this issue is resolved. I anticipate having it fixed in build 124.
Adam,
Is it known approximately when this bug was introduced? I have a system running
snv_111 with a lar
Scott Meilicke wrote:
> So what happens during the txg commit?
>
> For example, if the ZIL is a separate device, SSD for this example, does it
> not work like:
>
> 1. A sync operation commits the data to the SSD
> 2. A txg commit happens, and the data from the SSD are written to the
> spinning
olution-- the peripherals on those boards a a bit better
supported than the AMD stuff, but even the AMD boards work well.
Eric
--
Eric Sproul
Lead Site Reliability Engineer
OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc.
Web Applications & Internet Architectures
http://omniti.com
___
25 matches
Mail list logo
