Any ideas? On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:46 AM, LIC mesh <licm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's what I thought also, but since both prtvtoc and fdisk -G see the > two disks as the same (and I have not overridden sector size), I am > confused. > * > * > *iostat -xnE:* > c16t5000C5002AA08E4Dd0 Soft Errors: 0 Hard Errors: 323 Transport Errors: > 489 > Vendor: ATA Product: ST32000542AS Revision: CC34 Serial No: > %FAKESERIAL% > Size: 2000.40GB <2000398934016 bytes> > Media Error: 207 Device Not Ready: 0 No Device: 116 Recoverable: 0 > Illegal Request: 0 Predictive Failure Analysis: 0 > c16t5000C5005295F727d0 Soft Errors: 0 Hard Errors: 0 Transport Errors: 0 > Vendor: ATA Product: ST2000VX000-9YW1 Revision: CV13 Serial No: > %FAKESERIAL% > Size: 2000.40GB <2000398934016 bytes> > Media Error: 0 Device Not Ready: 0 No Device: 0 Recoverable: 0 > Illegal Request: 0 Predictive Failure Analysis: 0 > > *zpool status:* > pool: rspool > state: ONLINE > scan: resilvered 719G in 65h28m with 0 errors on Fri Aug 24 04:21:44 2012 > config: > > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > rspool ONLINE 0 0 0 > raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c16t5000C5002AA08E4Dd0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c16t5000C5002ABE78F5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c16t5000C5002AC49840d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c16t50014EE057B72DD3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > c16t50014EE057B69208d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > cache > c4t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > spares > c16t5000C5005295F727d0 AVAIL > > errors: No known data errors > > *root@nas:~# zpool replace rspool c16t5000C5002AA08E4Dd0 > c16t5000C5005295F727d0* > cannot replace c16t5000C5002AA08E4Dd0 with c16t5000C5005295F727d0: devices > have different sector alignment > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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
