What is the error message you are seeing on the "replace"? This sounds like a slice size/placement problem, but clearly, prtvtoc seems to think that everything is the same. Are you certain that you did prtvtoc on the correct drive, and not one of the active disks by mistake?
Gregg Wonderly > As does fdisk -G: > root@nas:~# fdisk -G /dev/rdsk/c16t5000C5002AA08E4Dd0 > * Physical geometry for device /dev/rdsk/c16t5000C5002AA08E4Dd0 > * PCYL NCYL ACYL BCYL NHEAD NSECT SECSIZ > 60800 60800 0 0 255 252 512 > You have new mail in /var/mail/root > root@nas:~# fdisk -G /dev/rdsk/c16t5000C5005295F727d0 > * Physical geometry for device /dev/rdsk/c16t5000C5005295F727d0 > * PCYL NCYL ACYL BCYL NHEAD NSECT SECSIZ > 60800 60800 0 0 255 252 512 > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:01 AM, LIC mesh <licm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yet another weird thing - prtvtoc shows both drives as having the same sector > size, etc: > root@nas:~# prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c16t5000C5002AA08E4Dd0 > * /dev/rdsk/c16t5000C5002AA08E4Dd0 partition map > * > * Dimensions: > * 512 bytes/sector > * 3907029168 sectors > * 3907029101 accessible sectors > * > * Flags: > * 1: unmountable > * 10: read-only > * > * Unallocated space: > * First Sector Last > * Sector Count Sector > * 34 222 255 > * > * First Sector Last > * Partition Tag Flags Sector Count Sector Mount Directory > 0 4 00 256 3907012495 3907012750 > 8 11 00 3907012751 16384 3907029134 > root@nas:~# prtvtoc /dev/rdsk/c16t5000C5005295F727d0 > * /dev/rdsk/c16t5000C5005295F727d0 partition map > * > * Dimensions: > * 512 bytes/sector > * 3907029168 sectors > * 3907029101 accessible sectors > * > * Flags: > * 1: unmountable > * 10: read-only > * > * Unallocated space: > * First Sector Last > * Sector Count Sector > * 34 222 255 > * > * First Sector Last > * Partition Tag Flags Sector Count Sector Mount Directory > 0 4 00 256 3907012495 3907012750 > 8 11 00 3907012751 16384 3907029134 > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Timothy Coalson <tsc...@mst.edu> wrote: > I think you can fool a recent Illumos kernel into thinking a 4k disk is 512 > (incurring a performance hit for that disk, and therefore the vdev and pool, > but to save a raidz1, it might be worth it): > > http://wiki.illumos.org/display/illumos/ZFS+and+Advanced+Format+disks , see > "Overriding the Physical Sector Size" > > I don't know what you might have to do to coax it to do the replace with a > hot spare (zpool replace? export/import?). Perhaps there should be a feature > in ZFS that notifies when a pool is created or imported with a hot spare that > can't be automatically used in one or more vdevs? The whole point of hot > spares is to have them automatically swap in when you aren't there to fiddle > with things, which is a bad time to find out it won't work. > > Tim > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM, LIC mesh <licm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well this is a new one.... > > Illumos/Openindiana let me add a device as a hot spare that evidently has a > different sector alignment than all of the other drives in the array. > > So now I'm at the point that I /need/ a hot spare and it doesn't look like I > have it. > > And, worse, the other spares I have are all the same model as said hot spare. > > Is there anything I can do with this or am I just going to be up the creek > when any one of the other drives in the raidz1 fails? > > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
