Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

7

IMHO the parameters in /sys/module/zfs/parameters can only be set to 0 / 1 - disabled / enabled." Correction: depends on the parameter 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. This change will take effect upon reboot. echo ...


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 ...


4

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

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.


3

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


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

After a lot of troubleshooting with some great people over at the OpenZFS GitHub, I can confirm that this is a bug. The real problem is that I created the pool using the last partition of the disk which, on Linux, can be confused as corruption if the partition aligns closely enough with the end of the disk. ZFS creates four labels on the target device for ...


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

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