We have a production SunFireV240 that had a zfs mirror until this week. One of
the drives (c1t3d0) in the mirror failed.
The system was shutdown and the bad disk replaced without an export.
I don't know what happened next but by the time I got involved there was no
evidence that the remaining go
No. Only slice 6 from what I understand.
I didn't create this (the person who did has left the company) and all I know
is that the pool was mounted on /oraprod before it faulted.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Never mind.
It looks like the controller is flakey. Neither disk in the mirror is clean.
Attempts to backup and recover the remaining disk produced I/O errors that were
traced to the controller.
Thanks for your help Victor.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
I have a 20Tb pool on a mount point that is made up of 42 disks from an EMC
SAN. We were running out of space and down to 40Gb left (loading 8Gb/day) and
have not received disk for our SAN. Using df -h results in:
Filesystem size used avail capacity Mounted on
pool1
Yes, you're correct. There was a typo when I copied to the forum.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Yes. We run a snap in cron to a disaster recovery site.
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
po...@20100930-22:20:00 13.2M - 19.5T -
po...@20101001-01:20:00 4.35M - 19.5T -
po...@20101001-04:20:00 0 - 19.5T -
po...@20101001-07:20:00
One of us found the following:
The presence of snapshots can cause some unexpected behavior when you attempt
to free space. Typically, given appropriate permissions, you can remove a file
from a full file system, and this action results in more space becoming
available in the file system. Howev
> Roch - PAE wrote:
> The hard part is getting a set of simple requirements. As you go into
> more complex data center environments you get hit with older Solaris
> revs, other OSs, SOX compliance issues, etc. etc. etc. The world where
> most of us seem to be playing with ZFS is on the lower end
rbourbon writes:
> I don't think it was the point of the post. I've read
> it to mean that some customers because of outside
> consideration from ZFS have some need to use storage array in ways
> that may not allow ZFS to develop it's full potential.
I've been following this thread because we ha
