Hot answers tagged

8

Regarding tank - at the OpenZFS Developer Summit 2015 it was stated that they were fans of the Matrix, and it referred to the character "Tank". If you look through the documentation, right along side "Tank" are pools named "Dozer". Funny how the nerd shines through.


6

This setup may not be tuned well. There are parameters needed for both the /etc/modprobe/zfs.conf file and the ashift value when using SSDs Try ashift=12 or 13 and test again. Edit: This is still a virtualized solution, so we don't know too much about the underlying hardware or how everything is interconnected. I don't know that you'll get better ...


5

Resilvering (and scrubbing) involves walking the entire B-Tree of the pool, and re-silvering blocks that would have been on the missing disk. Without walking through every single txg in the tree, it cannot know which blocks would have been on the missing disk, hence it scans the entire metadata universe for the pool. It doesn't necessarily read all the ...


4

You can, but you probably shouldn't. The DL360 G7 doesn't present disks in a JBOD fashion. If you're using the onboard HP Smart Array controller, this won't work the way you expect. Depending on the OS you use, there are swap and other I/O activity considerations. Why go through all of this? If you want ZFS, just use it on the server in a baremetal OS ...


4

It should also be noted, just because I just killed 7TB of data by following LapTop006's, well, lets call it "personal opinion", that a P400 Controller would expose unassigned disks as JBOD, that this is nothing but a guess, and it is false, at least for my P400. There may be other controllers behaving like LapTop006 said, the P400 does not, at least not ...


4

What they're alluding to here is a configuration where you simply add all the disks to a pool (without a parent mirror or raidz group controlling the disks). In this configuration, the number of devices a file is put on is dictated by the copies attribute, which is controlled by the zfs set command - so some data (by ZFS filesystem) in the pool will have ...


4

No, you can't do anything with what you have other than adding drives to mirror the existing set (you'd need three) or rebuild with the ZFS protection level that makes the most sense for you.


4

I would work with a ZFS professional or vendor who specializes in ZFS-based solutions. You're talking about 100TB of data, and at that scale, there's too much opportunity to screw this up. ZFS is not an easy thing to get right; especially when you incorporate high-availability and design for resilience. I wouldn't plan on half-filling storage enclosures or ...


3

These paragraphs are misleading and misinformed. Ari has a single disk workstation. She buys a new disk and plugs it in. ZFS automatically adds the new disk space into the pool. ZFS doesn't automatically add a newly inserted disk to a pool. You have to run the zpool command to tell how you want the disk to be used. Her home directory is mirrored ...


3

I'd do what ZFS tells you to do in this case. Please run a scrub. I scrub my systems weekly on a schedule. I also use the zfswatcher daemon to monitor the health of Linux ZFS installs. Your ZFS array is probably untuned, so there are some values that can help improve scrubbing performance, but at this point, you should just run it. And for the other ...


3

There are a couple of explanations. One of them is that the system lost contact to the disk for a while and is now updating the latest changes to that disk. You should not remove a disk while it is resilvering, because RAIDz1 has only a single disk fault tolerance.


3

This is the problem with raidz1 (and also RAID5). If the data on the disk changes but no drive fault occurs to let ZFS or the RAID controller know which drive caused the error, then it can't know which drive is correct. With raidz2 (and higher) or RAID6, you get a quorum of drives that can decide which drive to ignore for reconstruction. Your only solution ...


3

Filesystems with a % character in them are shares of some sort. You can see the share properties for all shared filesystems with zfs get share.all This is documented in the man page for zfs_share: "A file system's automatic share name displays as filesystem%. For example, tank/home%." That style of documenting something is typical of Sun/Solaris. ...


3

Without detailed explanation here is how you can do this. Create an archive of your LXC container. Create a Proxmox Container using that archive as a template. First cd into your lxc container root directory: cd /var/lib/lxc/debian8/rootfs/ (If you used an lvm volume as your containers storage, you need to mount it and cd into your mount point, which ...


3

If you have a pool built from two disks as a raid-0, your data was striped over both disks. You cannot recover any data from a raid-0 when one disk is missing. Yout only option is a professional data rescue service that can repair the faulted disk.


3

Solaris 11 ZFS uses NFSv4 ACLs rather than POSIX ACLs. Linux doesn't have NFSv4 ACLs on ZFS at all, and seems like it never will. While NFSv4 ACLs are a superset of POSIX ACLs, seems like only Solaris can transfer/translate POSIX ACLs to NFSv4 ones during file moving/copying. So, concluding, I don't see a way to preserve ACL in ZFS snapshots. Either use ...


3

First of all, installing FreeBSD on a Sun hardware is a serious crime, you could be decapitated in some countries (however, I think that several years in prison camp on Chukotka will be enough) ! Second, 10.x version family includes a bsdinstall pretty capable of installing FreeBSD on ZFS root without the need of emulating sunrise by hand. Third, there's ...


3

I have a similar configuration with an AD joined server sharing from zfs, and have experienced the 'sleep' issue in FreeBSD 10.1 and 11.0, and several versions of Samba 3 and 4. I began to notice the lockup would occur mainly on changes to existing files, and not creation or deletion. After running very high samba debug levels, and catching a couple of ...


3

Is it safe to boot Linux from a USB drive? Yes, why not? I do it regularly. But having said that, it's not entirely trivial to do it well. If you just straight install Linux to a USB disk it's usually really slow and doesn't really work that great. However, if you use a tool like unetbootin it'll create a more optimal installation with which you can ...


3

Define "safe". As in: Does the system boot from USB? Yes Data integrity? No Fault tolerance? No I would not trust a file server to be booted from a single USB pen, unless it's a server just for testing/lab etc. We use USB drives (expensive ones) in our vSphere Cluster, and I've encountered failures many times. You've indicated that you have replaced the ...


3

Resilvering is a vdev operation; as you implied only the storage devices in that vdev are used to rebuild the new device. I'm not sure why it quotes the full size of the zpool, but I suspect the developers borrowed code from the scrub functions, or that it simply quotes the full zpool size as that would be the worst case scenario.


3

You could run zfs mount -a from a startup script? Not that I'd recommend doing ZFS on USB, but hey.


2

As tegbains pointed out in a comment, zfs send streams do not benefit from any storage-level deduplication in place. They also don't benefit from any other settings; this is why zfs send | zfs receive can be used to migrate data to new settings that otherwise would only take effect once the data is rewritten -- such a enabling or disabling deduplication, or ...


2

I think the problem with your -nv approach was that intermediate filesystems are not created when receiving with -n, and therefore it will fail every time, while it works without the no-op flag (but expanding the complete filesystems may take a long time). Unfortunately, most documentation/blogs online do not use this flag, therefore they never experience ...


2

From commentary (from the opening poster): I edited the ZFS sources on my FreeBSD installation, and made them bypass all sanity checks. After disabling enough of those, I managed to get the pool imported.


2

I'm going to include the answer to this question for FreeBSD for sake of completeness. According to man du: -A Display the apparent size instead of the disk usage. This can be helpful when operating on compressed volumes or sparse files.


2

If zpool clear doesn't fix it, you can make zfs forget the disk using zpool labelclear <partition> (available in http://zfsonlinux.org since zfs-v0.6.2). Be aware that even if you created the zpool using a whole device e.g. /dev/sda you have to specify the partition which zfs has created, e.g. /dev/sda1. (Credits go to DeHackEd, ...


2

I know this is an old question, but it gave me a few of the pieces I put together, and i thought i'd shoot back the script i came up with, since this is an almost exact match to my situation: it requires sas2ircu: http://www.avagotech.com/docs-and-downloads/host-bus-adapters/host-bus-adapters-common-files/sas_sata_6g_p20/SAS2IRCU_P20.zip and from the ports, ...


2

The Tx errors is either because of faulty fibers or HBA. I am guessing you were using hardware raid before, right? And had 4 pools? What you are seeing are not LUNs, but raw disks. Just use zpool create on the devices, and if the disks contain old pools, the you have to clear the beginning and end of the disk to get rid of that meta info.


2

Yes. The 80% rule applies... (with some exceptions) Think about it the same way you'd approach monitoring of a volume. 90% full is 90% regardless of the actual capacity and would still yield an alert. This is no different. You don't want to plan or expect to run at that high of a capacity.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible