Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

9

This is a udev issue that seems to be specific to Debian and Ubuntu variants. Most of my ZFS on Linux work is with CentOS/RHEL. Similar threads on the ZFS discussion list have mentioned this. See: scsi and ata entries for same hard drive under /dev/disk/by-id and ZFS on Linux/Ubuntu: Help importing a zpool after Ubuntu upgrade from 13.04 to 13.10, device ...


6

IMHO the parameters in /sys/module/zfs/parameters can only be set to 0 / 1 - disabled / enabled. I am in the same boat wanting to limit zfs' memory usage and it seems one has to create a /etc/modprobe.d/zfs.conf file and enter the parameter and the desired value in there. E.g. options zfs zfs_arc_max=34359738368 source: ...


6

$ sudo find /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/updates -name "splat.ko" -or -name "zcommon.ko" -or -name "zpios.ko" -or -name "spl.ko" -or -name "zavl.ko" -or -name "zfs.ko" -or -name "znvpair.ko" -or -name "zunicode.ko" | xargs rm -f $ sudo apt-get install --reinstall ubuntu-zfs $ sudo apt-get install --reinstall $(dpkg-query --show --showformat='${binary:Package}\n' ...


5

This came up in discussion on the ZFS mailing list. The kernel ABI changed between 0.6.2 and 0.6.3 in such a way that 0.6.3 user-land tools can't interact with 0.6.2 kernel modules, which is the configuration after upgrading to 0.6.3. According to numerous messages on this list, the right approach is simply to reboot. This is covered in the ZFS ...


5

That looks like...a bug. In fact, it is a bug. The ZFS userland is updated, but the kernel modules aren't being updated by DKMS. This assertion is caused by the version mismatch. You can work around it by a process given in a comment to the bug, by removing the old kernel modules and then reinstalling everything. $ find /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/extra -name ...


5

I hate to say this, but do you know that you were basically adding unraided disks to your pool? The command you provided basically says, "Add another disk to pool nas and stripe it with the existing disks." Is that what you meant to do? The pool is done at this point, especially if anything was written to the bad disk. If this were a pair of mirrors, the ...


4

Everything is operating normally. You're running into TB vs TiB confusion. TL;DR 12TB raw == 10.8TiB raw (which is what is listed by zpool list) 7.5TB usable == 6.8TiB usable (which is what is listed by zfs list) You have: 3×3TB drives 2×1.5TB drives yielding a total of 12TB of raw storage. ○ → units 12TB TiB * 10.913936 / 0.091625969 ...


3

Ubuntu seems to have some annoying udev issues that we don't see on the Red Hat/CentOS side. I'd recommend using the WWN-based device names if you can, as they seem less susceptible to this. Have you seen: Why did rebooting cause one side of my ZFS mirror to become UNAVAIL?


3

If you ever end up on this page and your running Debian, you only have to do the following to fix the issue: # apt-get update # apt-get dist-upgrade # reboot The issue occurred because a simple update doesn't not replace old library files with the newer ones. This is why a dist-upgrade is needed. From the apt-get manpage: dist-upgrade in addition to ...


3

No, ZFS on Linux doesn't support native encryption. Another option is encryptfs, but at this juncture, you're not going to find a native solution.


3

Ugly, but this would work. Except when it doesen't;). Be very careful when specifying the partitions and when replacing the disks try it in am VM beforehand, setup the virtual disks like your hardware an dry run it 1 or 2 times. make a scrub before you start and take a look at the S.M.A.R.T info from the disks. You would not try this with an already ...


2

The official bug page has this fix for Ubuntu and Debian users: # apt-get update # apt-get dist-upgrade # reboot


2

Typically for folks using ZoL that want encryption, encryptfs isn't desireable because you lose both performance and fuctionality. ZFS works best when it is the filesystem, not when you layer others on top of it (again, you can, but it's suboptimal). This is what encryptfs does (layers an encrypted filesystem on top of ZFS), and exactly why you see so much ...


2

In the 1st case, maybe some files of user1 can't be discovered by find(1) because they're hidden by some fs being mounted on top of them? In the 2nd case, maybe something is mounted somewhere under the zfs1 mountpoint and you include that in the space calculation? Incidentally, zfs get -H -o value mountpoint zpool/zfs1 will print just the mountpoint, so ...


2

I'd stick with mainstream filesystems like XFS (as promoted by Red Hat) and rely on ZFS for advanced filesystem needs. This is mainly due to: Mindshare: ZFS knowledge is held in the Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris/OpenIndiana communities. Maturity: The ZFS codebase is proven and has been around for awhile. Best-practices have evolved and I can't recall seeing ...


2

After lots and lots more Googling on this specific error message I was getting: root@kyou:/home/matt# zpool import -f storage cannot import 'storage': one or more devices are already in use (Included here for posterity and search indexes) I found this: https://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/forum/#!topic/zfs-discuss/VVEwd1VFDmc It was using the ...


2

My suggestion to you would be to get a duplicate set of disks and ghost the raw contents over to the other set of disks for starters. Once you get the data restored if possible you then have the disks to make a mirror or other backup on. It will allow you much more leeway in trying to recover your pool that way. you are also leaving out important ...


2

http://fibrevillage.com/storage/169-zfs-arc-on-linux-how-to-set-and-monitor-on-linux this article is very good starting version ZoL 0.6.2 you can set the c_max at runtime, however the ARC size will not be released automatically. to force the RAM to be released it is needed to export the zpool.


2

You should check that the auto expand property is set for your zpool. $ zpool get autoexpand zstorage If the property is set to off, you should set it to on to have your pool automatically expand to fill the available space. $ zpool set autoexpand=off zstorage I'll include the relevant portion of the man page for clarity. autoexpand=on | off ...


1

I ran into almost this exact problem trying to upgrade to the 3.13 series kernels on Debian Wheezy. You are right in your comment; it is a udev bug. I never did get it sorted unfortunately but it's worth exploring other kernels, especially the 3.11 series, for compatibility with the 0.6.2 version of ZOL. Just use the older kernel until 0.6.3 comes out.


1

I've given an elaborate answer already here: Is btrfs production ready? In short: Btrfs is nothing you already want on a production file server. Here are the reasons why: it becomes unpredictable if space is running out, though most core features are considered stable, others aren't yet and it is still a fast moving target. Being a fast moving target means ...


1

Ok, so this is definitely due to my inexperience with ZFS. Unlike a traditional file system where you can reference a particular partition from any context, ZFS seems to retain the exact information used to reference the data location no matter where it is loaded from. For example, I created the zpool and referenced the device by from OSX by "/dev/disk0s6" ...


1

I believe you are misunderstanding the ZIL purpose. You describe it as a write cache which it is not. No activity on the ZIL might just be a normal behavior depending on what is running on your machine. Nothing is ever anything read from the ZIL, this is a write only device outside possibly at mount time after a crash. There are only writes to it if ...


1

I have debian-zfs installed on proxmox 3.2 (using this kernel pve-headers-2.6.32-26-pve). This is how I fixed it after the upgrade. aptitude purge dkms debian-zfs spl-dkms zfs-dkms I chose "Yes" to all the prompts, to remove it all. After that was done, I did some checking if there are any dkms leftovers. The below command should show an empty directory. ...


1

This sounds terrible. It's your data, so you can do as you wish... Nobody would endorse the solution, though. This is really a situation where you should just start over. Move your data somewhere temporarily and rebuild.


1

Just run a zpool clear solaris then post the result of zpool status -v. It would be nice to know the hardware involved and what controller you're using. edit Looking at your blkid output, you have remnants of a previous Linux software RAID. You'll need to mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/sdb1 to clear that.


1

It's always better to use redundant pools instead of non-redundant pools (though not always possible). The issue above is not likely to happen on a redundant pool. And it's faster to clone a snapshot (to get a file from it) than to recreate it somewhere (if you, of course, have no complaints about faulty hardware).



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