...and, apparently, I can replace two drives at the similar time (in two
commands), and resilvering goes in parallel:
{code}
[r...@t2k1 /]# zpool status pool
pool: pool
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for
the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state.
action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'.
see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-2Q
scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Sun Jan 18 15:11:24 2009
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
pool DEGRADED 0 0 0
raidz2 DEGRADED 0 0 0
c1t0d0s3 ONLINE 0 0 0
/ff1 OFFLINE 0 0 0
c1t2d0s3 ONLINE 0 0 0
/ff2 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open
errors: No known data errors
[r...@t2k1 /]# zpool replace pool /ff1 c1t1d0s3; zpool replace pool /ff2
c1t3d0s3
{code}
This took a while, about half-a-minute. Now, how is array rebuild going?
{code}
[r...@t2k1 /]# zpool status pool
pool: pool
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will
continue to function, possibly in a degraded state.
action: Wait for the resilver to complete.
scrub: resilver in progress for 0h0m, 0.48% done, 1h9m to go
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
pool DEGRADED 0 0 0
raidz2 DEGRADED 0 0 0
c1t0d0s3 ONLINE 0 0 0
replacing DEGRADED 0 0 0
/ff1 OFFLINE 0 0 0
c1t1d0s3 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t2d0s3 ONLINE 0 0 0
replacing DEGRADED 0 0 0
/ff2 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open
c1t3d0s3 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
{code}
The progress meter tends to lie at first: resilvering takes roughly 30 min for
the
raidz2 of 4*60Gb slices.
BTW, an earlier poster reported very slow synchronization using real disks and
sparse files on a single disk. I removed the sparse files as soon as the array
was
initialized, and writing to two searate drives went reasonably well.
I sent data from the latest snapshot of the oldpool to the newpool with
{code}
zfs send -R oldp...@20090118-02-postupgrade | zfs recv -vF -d newpool
{code}
Larger datasets went in the normal range of 13-20Mb/s (of course, smaller
datasets and snapshots ranging in a few kilobytes of size took more time to
open-close than actually copying data; so estimated speed was bytes or kbytes
per sec).
//Jim
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
