http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49231 <pre>I'm currently trying to get a SuperMicro JBOD with dual SAS expander chips running in MPxIO, but I'm a total amateur to this and would like to ask about how to detect whether MPxIO is working (or not). My SAS topology is: *) One LSI SAS2008-equipped HBA (running the latest IT firmware from LSI) with two external ports. *) Two SAS cables running from the HBA to the SuperMicro JBOD, where they enter the JBOD's rear backplane (which is equipped with two LSI SAS expander chips). *) From the rear backplane, via two internal SAS cables to the front backplane (also with two SAS expanders on it) *) The JBOD is populated with 45 2TB Toshiba SAS 7200rpm drives The machine also has a PERC H700 for the boot media, configured into a hardware RAID-1 (on which rpool resides). Here is the relevant part from cfgadm -al for the MPxIO bits: c5 scsi-sas connected configured unknown c5::dsk/c5t50000393D8CB4452d0 disk connected configured unknown c5::dsk/c5t5</pre> Sašo Kiselkov 2012-05-25T17:07:15 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49230 <pre>I have a chance to pick up a system at a reasonable price built with an AMD FX8120 8 core 3.1 GHz on a Gigabyte motherboard. Is anybody runing with this combo? Looking for info from an actual user. Thanks. </pre> Nomen Nescio 2012-05-25T16:01:30 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49212 <pre>What causes these messages? cannot create snapshot 'zones/rani/ROOT/zbe-2&lt; at &gt;migration': dataset is busy There are zones living in zones pool, but none of the zones are running or mounted. root&lt; at &gt;:~# zfs get -r mounted,zoned,mountpoint zones/rani NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE zones/rani mounted yes - zones/rani zoned off default zones/rani mountpoint /zones/rani default zones/rani/ROOT mounted no - zones/rani/ROOT zoned on local zones/rani/ROOT mountpoint legacy local zones/rani/ROOT&lt; at &gt;original mounted - - zones/rani/ROOT&lt; at &gt;original zoned - - zones/rani/ROOT&lt; at &gt;original mountpoint - - zones/rani/ROOT/zbe-2 mounted no - zones/rani/ROOT/zbe-2 zoned on local zones/rani/ROOT/zbe-2 mountpoint legacy inherited from zones/rani/ROOT root&lt; at &gt;:~# This is on a very </pre> Anil Jangity 2012-05-20T04:18:06 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49207 <pre>Dears, I need help to get my pool online again. root&lt; at &gt;node1 # zdb -l /dev/dsk/c2t1d15**** --------------------------------------------**** LABEL 0**** --------------------------------------------**** failed to unpack label 0**** --------------------------------------------**** LABEL 1**** --------------------------------------------**** failed to unpack label 1**** --------------------------------------------**** LABEL 2**** --------------------------------------------**** failed to unpack label 2**** --------------------------------------------**** LABEL 3**** --------------------------------------------**** failed to unpack label 3**** root&lt; at &gt;node1 # zdb -l /dev/dsk/c4t2d19**** --------------------------------------------**** LABEL 0**** --------------------------------------------**** failed to unpack label 0**** --------------------------------------------**** LABEL 1**** --------------------------------------------**** failed to unpack label 1**** ----------------------------</pre> Mohamed Magdy 2012-05-18T02:28:43 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49201 <pre>Hello all, While waiting for that resilver to complete last week, I caught myself wondering how the resilvers (are supposed to) work in ZFS? Based on what I see in practice and read in this list and some blogs, I've built a picture and would be grateful if some experts actually familiar with code and architecture would say how far off I guessed from the truth ;) Ultimately I wonder if there are possible optimizations to make the scrub process more resembling a sequential drive-cloning (bandwidth/throughput-bound), than an IOPS-bound random seek thrashing for hours that we often see now, at least on (over?)saturated pools. This may possibly improve zfs send speeds as well. First of all, I state (and ask to confirm): I think resilvers are a subset of scrubs, in that: 1) resilvers are limited to a particular top-level VDEV (and its number is a component of each block's DVA address) and 2) when scrub finds a block mismatching its known checksum, scrub reallocates the whole block anew using the re</pre> Jim Klimov 2012-05-17T23:05:09 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49184 <pre>Does anyone know what the minimum value for zfs_arc_max should be set to? Does it depend on the amount of memory on the system, and - if so - is there a formula, or percentage, to use to determine what the minimum value is? Thanks Richard Paynter Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or "Protected Health Information," within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability &amp; Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss&lt; at &gt;opensolar</pre> Paynter, Richard 2012-05-16T19:35:25 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49174 <pre> I have a small server at home (HP Proliant Micro N36) that I use for file, DNS, DHCP, etc. services. I currently have a zpool of four mirrored 1 TB Seagate ES2 SATA drives. Well, it was a zpool of four until last night when one of the drives died. ZFS did it's job and all the data is still OK. The drive is still under warranty and is going back to Seagate, but it raised an issue. I want to pick up a spare drive or two so that I don't have to wait for shipping delays when a drive fails. I was just going to pick up another 1 TB ES2 or two, but I find that those drives are no longer available (I bought mine in 2009, warranty is up in 2014). What do people like today for 7x24 operation SATA drives? I am willing to consider 2TB, but don't really need the extra capacity (but if that is all the market offers, I don't have to use the other half :-) I found a Seagate Constellation ES 2 TB for about $350 (which is more than I really want to spend, I got the ES2 1TB drives for about $130 when I bought the</pre> Paul Kraus 2012-05-16T14:53:36 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49170 <pre>Hi All, I have FC LUNs from NetApp FAS 3240 mapped to two SPARC T4-2 clustered nodes running Veritas Cluster Server software. For now, the configuration on NetApp is as follows: /vol/EBUSApp/EBUSApp 100G online MBSUN04 : 0 MBSUN05 : 0 /vol/EBUSBinry/EBUSBinry 200G online MBSUN04 : 1 MBSUN05 : 1 /vol/EBUSCtrlog/EBUSCtrlog 5G online MBSUN04 : 2 MBSUN05 : 2 /vol/EBUSDB/EBUSDB 300.0G online MBSUN04 : 3 MBSUN05 : 3 /vol/EBUSIO_FENC1/EBUSIO_FENC1 5G online MBSUN04 : 4 MBSUN05 : 4 /vol/EBUSIO_FENC2/EBUSIO_FENC2 5G online MBSUN04 : 5 MBSUN05 : 5 /vol/EBUSIO_FENC3/EBUSIO_FENC3 5G online MBSUN04 : 6 MBSUN05 : 6 /vol/EBUSRDlog/EBUSRDlog 5G online MBSUN04 : 7 MBSUN05 : 7 I will be mapping the above volumes on hosts and creating zpool andzfs </pre> Bruce McGill 2012-05-16T09:20:55 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49166 <pre>Hi, I'm getting weird errors while trying to install openindiana 151a on a Dell R715 with a PERC H200 (based on an LSI SAS 2008). Any time the OS tries to access the drives (for whatever reason), I get this dumped into syslog: genunix: WARNING: Device /pci&lt; at &gt;0,0/pci1002,5a18&lt; at &gt;4/pci10b58424&lt; at &gt;0/pci10b5,8624&lt; at &gt;0/pci1028,1f1e&lt; at &gt;0/iport&lt; at &gt;40/disk&lt; at &gt;w50000c0f01004ebe,0 failed to power up genunix: WARNING: Device /pci&lt; at &gt;0,0/pci1002,5a18&lt; at &gt;4/pci10b58424&lt; at &gt;0/pci10b5,8624&lt; at &gt;0/pci1028,1f1e&lt; at &gt;0/iport&lt; at &gt;80/disk&lt; at &gt;w50000c0f01064e9e,0 failed to power up (these are two WD 300GB 10k SAS drives) When this log message shows up, I can see each drive light up the drive LED briefly and then it turns off, so apparently the OS tried to initialize the drives, but somehow failed and gave up. Consequently, when I try and access them in format(1), they show up as an unknown type and installing openindiana on them fails while the installer is trying to do fdisk. Has anybody got any idea what I can do to the controller/drives/whatever to fix the "failed to </pre> Sašo Kiselkov 2012-05-16T07:14:18 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49162 <pre>Hello all, I'd like some practical advice on migration of a Sun Fire X4500 (Thumper) from aging data disks to a set of newer disks. Some questions below are my own, others are passed from the customer and I may consider not all of them sane - but must ask anyway ;) 1) They hope to use 3Tb disks, and hotplugged an Ultrastar 3Tb for testing. However, the system only sees it as a 802Gb device, via Solaris format/fdisk as well as via parted [1]. Is that a limitation of the Marvell controller, disk, the current OS (snv_117)? Would it be cleared by a reboot and proper disk detection on POST (I'll test tonight) or these big disks won't work in X4500, period? [1] http://code.google.com/p/solaris-parted/downloads/detail?name=solaris-parted-0.2.tar.gz&amp;can=2&amp;q= Gotta run now, will ask more in the evening :) Thanks for now, //Jim </pre> Jim Klimov 2012-05-15T09:41:50 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49159 <pre>On a Solaris 11 system I have a pool that was originally built with a log a cache device on a single SSD. The SSD died and I realised I should have a mirror log, so I've just tried to replace the log a cache with a pair of SSDs. Adding the log was OK: zpool add -f export log mirror c10t3d0s0 c10t4d0s0 But adding the cache fails: zpool add -f export cache c10t3d0s1 c10t4d0s1 invalid vdev specification the following errors must be manually repaired: /dev/dsk/c10t3d0s2 is part of active ZFS pool export. Please see zpool(1M). /dev/dsk/c10t3d0s1 overlaps with /dev/dsk/c10t3d0s2 Now that looks impossible to repair, s2 can't be removed. The SSD partition table is: Total disk cylinders available: 19932 + 2 (reserved cylinders) Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks 0 unassigned wm 0 - 2674 16.00GB (2675/0/0) 33555200 1 unassigned wm 2675 - 19931 103.22GB (17257/0/0) 216471808 2 backup wu 0 - 19931 119.22GB (1993</pre> Ian Collins 2012-05-14T09:02:48 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49144 <pre>Hello all, SHORT VERSION: What conditions can cause the reset of the resilvering process? My lost-and-found disk can't get back into the pool because of resilvers restarting... LONG VERSION: I maintain a number of older systems, and among them a Sun Thumper (X4500) running OpenSolaris SXCE with nowadays-smallish 250Gb disks and a ZPOOL v14 (with the OS supporting ZPOOLv16). This year it has "lost contact" with two different drives, however a poweroff followed by poweron restored the contact. On the first time a couple of months ago the system successfully used the hotspare disk with no issues worth mentioning or remembering. This week however the hotspare took days to get used and ultimately didn't, with pool CKSUM errors growing into millions on the lost disk, and dmesg clobbered with messages about the lost drive. There was even no message about resilvering in "zpool status", other than that the hotspare is "IN USE". After a reboot the disk was re-found and the resilver went humming a</pre> Jim Klimov 2012-05-11T10:22:58 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49140 <pre>I have an application I have been using to manage data replication for a number of years. Recently we started using a new machine as a staging server (not that new, an x4540) running Solaris 11 with a single pool built from 7x6 drive raidz. No dedup and no reported errors. On that box and nowhere else is see empty snapshots taking 17 or 18 seconds to write. Everywhere else they return in under a second. Using truss and the last published source code, it looks like the pause is between a printf and the call to zfs_ioctl and there aren't any other functions calls between them: 100.5124 0.0004 open("/dev/zfs", O_RDWR|O_EXCL) = 10 100.7582 0.0001 read(7, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0ACCBBAF5".., 312) = 312 100.7586 0.0000 read(7, 0x080464F8, 0) = 0 100.7591 0.0000 time() = 1336628656 100.7653 0.0035 ioctl(8, ZFS_IOC_OBJSET_STATS, 0x08040CF0) = 0 100.7699 0.0022 ioctl(8, ZFS_IOC_OBJSET_STATS, 0x08040900) = 0 100.7</pre> Ian Collins 2012-05-10T10:37:06 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49133 <pre>I have an interesting issue with one single ZFS filesystem in a pool. All the other filesystems are fine, and can be mounted, snapshoted, destroyed, etc. But this one filesystem, if I try to do any operation on it (zfs mount, zfs snapshot, zfs destroy, zfs set &lt;anything&gt;), it spins the system until all RAM is used up (wired), and then hangs the box. The zfs process sits in tx -&gt; tx_sync_done_cv state until the box locks up. CTRL+T of the process only ever shows this: load: 0.46 cmd: zfs 3115 [tx-&gt;tx_sync_done_cv)] 36.63r 0.00u 0.00s 0% 2440k Anyone come across anything similar? And found a way to fix it, or to destroy the filesystem? Any suggestions on how to go about debugging this? Any magical zdb commands to use? The filesystem only has 5 MB of data in it (log files), compressed via LZJB for a compressratio of ~6x. There are no snapshots for this filesystem. Dedupe is enabled on the pool and all filesystems. System is running 64-bit FreeBSD 9.0: FreeBSD alphadrive.sd73.bc.ca 9.0-RELEASE Fr</pre> Freddie Cash 2012-05-08T17:24:48 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49121 <pre>Hi, I'm showing slow zfs send on pool v29. About 25MB/sec bash-3.2# zpool status vdipool pool: vdipool state: ONLINE scan: scrub repaired 86.5K in 7h15m with 0 errors on Mon Feb 6 01:36:23 2012 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM vdipool ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t5000C500103F2057d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 (SEAGATE-ST31000640SS-0003-931.51GB) Promise Jbod c0t5000C5000440AA0Bd0 ONLINE 0 0 0 (SEAGATE-ST31000640SS-0003-931.51GB) Promise Jbod c0t5000C500103E9FFBd0 ONLINE 0 0 0(SEAGATE-ST31000640SS-0003-931.51GB) Promise Jbod c0t5000C500103E370Fd0 ONLINE 0 0 0(SEAGATE-ST31000640SS-0003-931.51GB) Promise Jbod c0t5000C500103E120Fd0 ONLINE 0 0 0(SEAGATE-ST31000640SS-0003-931.51GB) Promise Jbod logs mirror-1 ONLI</pre> Karl Rossing 2012-05-07T16:45:54 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49118 <pre>I'm trying to configure a DELL R720 (not a pleasant experience) which has an H710p card fitted. The H710p definitely doesn't support JBOD, but the H310 looks like it might (the data sheet mentions non-RAID). Has anyone used one with ZFS? Thanks, </pre> Ian Collins 2012-05-07T01:26:58 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49113 <pre>On a Solaris 11 (SR3) system I have a zfs destroy process what appears to be doing nothing and can't be killed. It has used 5 seconds of CPU in a day and a half, but truss -p won't attach. No data appears to have been removed. The dataset (but not the pool) is busy. I thought this was an old problem that was fixed long ago in Solaris 10 (I had several temporary patches over the years), but it appears to be alive and well. Any hints? </pre> Ian Collins 2012-05-05T05:49:43 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49104 <pre>Hi all, I have a bad bad problem with our brand new server! The lengthy details are below but to cut the story short, on the same hardware (3 x LSI 9240-8i, 20 x 3TB 6gb HDDs) I am getting ZFS sequential writes of 1.4GB/s on Solaris 10 (20 disks, 10 mirrors) and only 200-240MB/s on latest Solaris 11.11 (same zpool config). By writing directly to raw disks I found that in S10 the speed is 140MB/s sequential writes per disk (consistent with combined 1.4GB/s for my zpool) whereas only 24MB/s in Solaris 11 (consistent with 240MB/s zpool, 10 mirrors 24MB/s each). This must be the controller drivers, right? I downloaded drivers version 4.7 off LSI site (says "for Solaris 10 and later") - they failed to attach on S11. Version 3.03 worked but the system would randomly crash, so I moved my experiments off S11 to S10. However, S10 has only the old implementation if iSCSI which gives me other problems so I decided to give S11 another go. Would there be any advice in this community? Many thanks! Roman ===========</pre> Roman Matiyenko 2012-05-04T12:25:07 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49092 <pre>Hi, I a Solaris 10 Update 10 box with 1 disk which is used for two different zpool: root&lt; at &gt;sct-jordi-02:~# cat /etc/release Oracle Solaris 10 8/11 s10x_u10wos_17b X86 Copyright (c) 1983, 2011, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Assembled 23 August 2011 root&lt; at &gt;sct-jordi-02:~# echo | format Searching for disks...done AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS: 0. c0t0d0 &lt;DEFAULT cyl 7829 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63&gt; /pci&lt; at &gt;0,0/pci15ad,1976&lt; at &gt;10/sd&lt; at &gt;0,0 Specify disk (enter its number): Specify disk (enter its number): root&lt; at &gt;sct-jordi-02:~# zpool iostat -v capacity operations bandwidth pool alloc free read write read write ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- opt 290M 29.5G 0 0 213 5.33K c0t0d0s7 290M 29.5G 0 0 213 5.33K ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- rpool 13.7G 16.3G 0 3 14.4K 53.8K c0t0d0s0 13.7G 16.3G </pre> Jordi Espasa Clofent 2012-05-03T05:44:19 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49068 <pre>I'm trying to run some IOzone benchmarking on a new system to get a feel for baseline performance. Unfortunately, the system has a lot of memory (144GB), but I have some time so am approaching my runs as follows: Throughput: iozone -m -t 8 -T -r 128k -o -s 36G -R -b bigfile.xls IOPS: iozone -O -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -e -+n -r 128K -s 288G &gt; iops.txt Not sure what I gain/lose by using threads or not. Am I off on this? System is a 240x2TB (7200RPM) system in 20 Dell MD1200 JBODs. 16 vdevs of 15 disks each -- RAIDZ3. NexentaStor 3.1.2. Ray </pre> Ray Van Dolson 2012-04-30T20:15:07 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs/49009 <pre>This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but recently several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course) rather than Linux with ZoL. I'm working on a project at work involving a large(-ish) amount of data, about 5TB, working its way up to 12-15TB eventually, spread among a dozen or so nodes. There may or may not be a clustered filesystem involved (probably gluster if we use anything). I've been looking at ZoL as the primary filesystem for this data. We're a Linux shop, so I'd rather not switch to FreeBSD, or any of the Solaris-derived distros--although I have no problem with them, I just don't want to introduce another OS into the mix if I can avoid it. So, the actual questions are: Is ZoL really not ready for production use? If not, what is holding it back? Features? Performance? Stability? If not, then what kind of timeframe are we looking at to get past whatever is holding it back? </pre> Paul Archer 2012-04-25T12:48:57 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.zfs