Search Results

Search found 5071 results on 203 pages for 'john zfs'.

Page 13/203 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

• Missing whole disk device in OpenSolaris

  - by Jeff Mc

  I have begun experimenting with Solaris and ZFS as a NAS. All was going very smoothly until I had a drive failure. When I replaced the drive, I no longer have a device file mapped to the whole disk. /dev/dsk/c7t3d0 does not exist but c7t2d0 and c7t4d0 both do. Also the sd@3,0:wd file under the /devices/ tree is non-existent. Do I have to prepare/partition the disk somehow to cause the whole disk device to exist? Here are a few outputs that might be useful. jeffmc@ats-ds2:/dev/dsk$ zpool status pool: datapool state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-2Q scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM datapool DEGRADED 0 0 0 mirror-0 DEGRADED 0 0 0 c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t3d0 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 jeffmc@ats-ds2:/dev/dsk$ zpool replace datapool c7t3d0 cannot open 'c7t3d0': no such device in /dev/dsk must be a full path or shorthand device name jeffmc@ats-ds2:/dev/dsk$ sudo format Searching for disks...done AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS: 0. c7t0d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@0,0 1. c7t1d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@1,0 2. c7t2d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@2,0 3. c7t3d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@3,0 4. c7t4d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@4,0 5. c7t5d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@5,0

  Read the article

• file system that allow to specify different RAID level per directory and change it afterward

  - by Adam Ryczkowski

  I have 5 hard drives, where I want to keep my data. Some of my files are more important, and some of them are less. So some of them I wish to put on RAID-6, and for some it RAID-5 is sufficient. It is difficult to predict at the moment of creation of the arrays how much space of each type to declare. What I would do if I didn't hear about zfs, is partition the hard drives into identical 100GB partitions, and as my needs grow, assemble those partitions into md devices using linux-raid. Then, I'd combine those devices using lvm into logical volumes where I'd put my data. So when I'd need more space of e.g. RAID-6, I'd take 100GB partition from each hard drive and assemble them into another RAID-6 md device and would use it as physical storage for the logical volume group dedicated for RAID-6 data. Then I could grow the file system on this logical volume. On top of RAID-6 and RAID-5 Volume Groups (managed by lvm) would reside completely independent file systems, which I'd later merge with multiple mount --bind into a single directory structure that would reflect the logical structure of data rather that of the storage. But now, when I heard about the ZFS with all the performance, data-healing and compression capabilities I cannot stop thinking if it can help me. If so, what do you think would be the best setup?

  Read the article

• 150 TB and growing, but how to grow?

  - by seandavi

  My group currently has two largish storage servers, both NAS running debian linux. The first is an all-in-one 24-disk (SATA) server that is several years old. We have two hardware RAIDS set up on it with LVM over those. The second server is 64 disks divided over 4 enclosures, each a hardware RAID 6, connected via external SAS. We use XFS with LVM over that to create 100TB useable storage. All of this works pretty well, but we are outgrowing these systems. Having build two such servers and still growing, we want to build something that allows us more flexibility in terms of future growth, backup options, that behaves better under disk failure (checking the larger filesystem can take a day or more), and can stand up in a heavily concurrent environment (think small computer cluster). We do not have system administration support, so we administer all of this ourselves (we are a genomics lab). So, what we seek is a relatively low-cost, acceptable performance storage solution that will allow future growth and flexible configuration (think ZFS with different pools having different operating characteristics). We are probably outside the realm of a single NAS. We have been thinking about a combination of ZFS (on openindiana, for example) or btrfs per server with glusterfs running on top of that if we do it ourselves. What we are weighing that against is simply biting the bullet and investing in Isilon or 3Par storage solutions. Any suggestions or experiences are appreciated.

  Read the article

• How to make a redundant desktop system with daily snapshots? (Is btrfs ready for use?)

  - by TestUser16418

  I want to configure a desktop system in which the home filesystem would be redundant (e.g. RAID-1), and would have weekly snapshots taken. I've already done this with ZFS, the snapshot system is wonderful, and with send/recv you can easily create backups on external media. Unfortunately, at that point, I want GNU+Linux and not FreeBSD or Solaris, so I'm looking for suggestions for good alternatives. I reckon that my alternatives are: btrfs - it seems to be exactly what I need, it has snapshots and commands that allow you to easily replicate zfs send. Yet all documentation mentions that it's still experimental. I can't seem to find any actual reports on its reliability or usability issues. Can you point me to any information on that issue that could clarify whether it would be a possible choice? I have a large preference for this option, mostly because I don't want to reformat the drives when btrfs becomes ready, but I there's no information on whether it's usable at all, whether it's a silly idea to use it, etc. The question that I cannot get the answer to is what does "experimental" mean. lvm snapshots and ext4 - preferably not, since it can consume an awful amount of space when new files are created. Creating 200 GB files requres 200 GB free space and 200 GB additionally for snapshots. I also have found it unreliable -- failed metadata rewrite results in an unreadable PV. I'm wondering how btrfs would compare here. A single filesystem (ext4) on a RAID-1 array with custom COW snapshots with hardlinks (like cp -al). That's my current preference if I can't use btrfs. So how experimental btrfs is, which should I choose, and do I have any other options? What if I don't keep external incremental backups, would that affect my choice?

  Read the article

• Microsoft T-SQL Counting Consecutive Records

  - by JeffW

  Problem: From the most current day per person, count the number of consecutive days that each person has received 0 points for being good. Sample data to work from : Date Name Points 2010-05-07 Jane 0 2010-05-06 Jane 1 2010-05-07 John 0 2010-05-06 John 0 2010-05-05 John 0 2010-05-04 John 0 2010-05-03 John 1 2010-05-02 John 1 2010-05-01 John 0 Expected answer: Jane was bad on 5/7 but good the day before that. So Jane was only bad 1 day in a row most recently. John was bad on 5/7, again on 5/6, 5/5 and 5/4. He was good on 5/3. So John was bad the last 4 days in a row. Code to create sample data: IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#z') IS NOT NULL BEGIN DROP TABLE #z END select getdate() as Date,'John' as Name,0 as Points into #z insert into #z values(getdate()-1,'John',0) insert into #z values(getdate()-2,'John',0) insert into #z values(getdate()-3,'John',0) insert into #z values(getdate()-4,'John',1) insert into #z values(getdate(),'Jane',0) insert into #z values(getdate()-1,'Jane',1) select * from #z order by name,date desc

  Read the article

• NTFS journal on different (SSD) disk

  - by Aram Havarneanu

  Some advanced file systems, like ZFS have the option of using SSD disks as a second level cache for the file system or for the journal. Is this possible with NTFS?

  Read the article

• SAS Array with or without expander

  - by tegbains

  Is it better to use a SAS Expander backplane for 12 drives via one SAS connection or is it better to use a SAS backplane with 3 SAS connections? This is in terms of performance, rather than expansion. This array will be setup using ZFS on a OpenSolaris via a LSI SAS controller as an iSCSI target. The two products being considered are the SuperMicro SuperChassis 826A-R1200LPB or the SuperChassis 826E2-R800LPB

  Read the article

• Best Filesystem to use for Desktop Linux?

  - by contagious

  I'm going to be building a fancy new desktop soon, and I want to experiment with file systems. I know that ext3 is the most common for linux, but what about ext4, or zfs? Are their any pros or cons to certain ones? I won't be doing anything spectacularly off the wall, just using it as my main box. It is a good possibility that it will double as my web server, though.

  Read the article

• How do I integrate a OpenSolaris NAS with AD?

  - by Neo

  I basically want a OpenSolaris NAS (ZFS goodies) but I'd like to integrate it with AD, so that when I create a new user in AD, his roaming profile is created in the NAS. That means all his ACLs have to work (I know they're compatible), etc. The tutorials I found don't actually work, so any help would be much appreciated.

  Read the article

• Writing files directly in zpool

  - by Phliplip

  Hi, We're on freebsd 8, and i created a zpool of 3 drives. # zpool create mypool da1 da2 da3 Now my question is, can i begin saving files to this?.. we´re talking 1TB of pictures (photography). Or is it required and or safest to create a zfs on it first.

  Read the article

• Best filesystem choices for NFS storing VMware disk images

  - by mlambie

  Currently we use an iSCSI SAN as storage for several VMware ESXi servers. I am investigating the use of an NFS target on a Linux server for additional virtual machines. I am also open to the idea of using an alternative operating system (like OpenSolaris) if it will provide significant advantages. What Linux-based filesystem favours very large contiguous files (like VMware's disk images)? Alternatively, how have people found ZFS on OpenSolaris for this kind of workload?

  Read the article

• Nexenta storage metro cluster - what are components involved?

  - by Jiri Xichtkniha

  I'm quite imporesses that Nexenta can build storage metro cluster (site to site storage mirroring). As Nexenta is built on Illumos (successor of OpenSolaris) I was thinking what kind of components are involved in their storage metro cluster. Could anybody enlight me what components are doing this site-site mirroring and if these components are open source so one can build similar storage metro cluster on his own? ZFS is local filesystem so what takes care of clustering?

  Read the article

• Technical details for Server 2012 de-duplication feature

  - by syneticon-dj

  Now that Windows Server 2012 comes with de-duplication features for NTFS volumes I am having a hard time finding technical details about it. I can deduce from the TechNet documentation that the de-duplication action itself is an asynchronous process - not unlike how the SIS Groveler used to work - but there is virtually no detail about the implementation (algorithms used, resources needed, even the info on performance considerations is nothing but a bunch rule-of-thumb-style recommendations). Insights and pointers are greatly appreciated, a comparison to Solaris' ZFS de-duplication efficiency for a set of scenarios would be wonderful.

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04 transmission-daemon and zfsonlinux: bad file descriptor and corrupt pieces

  - by Ivailo Karamanolev

  I'm running a Ubuntu 12.04 with zfsonlinux and transmission-daemon. The issues: sporadic Bad File Descriptor and Piece #xxx is corrupt errors. After I recheck the torrent, everything seems fine. That happens only when downloading: once it's in seeding mode. This only happens after the torrent client has been running for some time. I installed zfsonlinux from the offical stable ppa (https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/stable). I previously tried running transmission-daemon from the Ubuntu repository, but since I've switched to building the latest transmission from source with the latest libevent (all stable) - same thing. I've seen bug reports (https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/4147) for that issue, but none of them seem to have a solution. How can I fix these errors, or at least understand where they come from and what I can do to rectify the issue?

  Read the article

• How to build a NAS?

  - by Walter White

  Hi all, I have quite a bit of photos I'd like to organize and get away from sparse DVDs and move to a NAS solution. Ideally, this would let me have some level of redundancy and more easily find what I'm looking for. That being said, hard drives are relatively cheap. My next question is, I would like to run ZFS on the drives with the ability to add / remove drives for additional redundancy, or change the configuration of the drives possibly. Is there a NAS box that let's you run your OS of choice (FreeNAS) so all I'd need to do is get the hard drives, the NAS box, and modify the firmware / OS with FreeNAS? Walter

  Read the article

• iSCSI: LUNs per target?

  - by badnews

  My question relates specifically to ZFS/COMSTAR but I assume is generally applicable to any iSCSI system: Should one prefer to create a target for every LUN that you want to expose? Or is it good practise to have a single target with multiple LUNs? Does either approach have a performance impact? And is there some crossover point where the other approach makes sense? The use case is for VM disks, where each disk (zvol) is a LUN. So far we have created a a separate target for each VM; but a single target that contains all the LUNs would probably greatly simplify management... but we may need hundreds of LUNs per a single target. (And then possibly tens of initiator connections to that target)

  Read the article

• Best filesystem choices for NFS storing VMware disk images

  - by mlambie

  Currently we use an iSCSI SAN as storage for several VMware ESXi servers. I am investigating the use of an NFS target on a Linux server for additional virtual machines. I am also open to the idea of using an alternative operating system (like OpenSolaris) if it will provide significant advantages. What Linux-based filesystem favours very large contiguous files (like VMware's disk images)? Alternatively, how have people found ZFS on OpenSolaris for this kind of workload? (This question was originally asked on SuperUser; feel free to migrate answers here if you know how).

  Read the article

• Virtualizing OpenSolaris with physical disks

  - by Fionna Davids

  I currently have a OpenSolaris installation with a ~1Tb RaidZ volume made up of 3 500Gb hard drives. This is on commodity hardware (ASUS NVIDIA based board on Intel Core 2). I'm wondering whether anyone knows if XenServer or Oracle VM can be used to install 2009.06 and get given physical access to the three SATA drives so that I can continue to use the zpool and be able to use the Xen bits for other areas. I'm thinking of installing the JeOS version of OpenSolaris, have it manage just my ZFS volume and some other stuff for work(4GB), then have a Windows(2GB) and Linux(1GB) VM (theres 8Gb RAM on that box) virtualised for testing things. Currently I am using VirtualBox installed on OpenSolaris for the Windows and Linux testing but wondered if the above was a better alternative. Essentially, 3 Disks - OpenSolaris Guest VM, it loads the zpool and offers it to the other VMs via CIFS.

  Read the article

• Older raid controllers in raid 5 vs. Jbod and SW raid

  - by TEB

  Hi. Im in the fortunate position to have 6 Supermicro older VOD servers with the following config: Supermicro 3U case, 3xPSU Dual Xeon 3ghz P4 class cpu (5 years old.. havnt checked the exact type) 4GB Ram 3ware 9500-8 SATA controller 8 SATA SLOTS and alot of free drives. 2GB FLASH Bootdrive What im curious about is the RAID5 performance on these old beasts in HW mode vs. SW on Linux with the controller set in JBOD mode. Im thinking on using Centos 5.5 or Ubuntu or ZFS RaidZ on Opensolaris. Any tips? or reccomendations ? best regards TEB

  Read the article

• How best to integrate PPA into Debian?

  - by eicos

  I'm working with ZFS on Linux, on my Debian squeeze server. I've found a useful package in an Ubuntu PPA, apparently by one of the ZoL developers, and I would like to integrate it into my package system. However, I am really having a terrible time doing this. It seems like it would be possible if I upgraded my system to the testing branch, but I'd prefer not to do this for obvious reasons. So, what is the One True Way to do this? Or, what is a passable way to do this, i.e. one that does not involve an ice nine-like assimilation of my entire system to testing branch? Edit: Silly question. I clicked the little green "technical information about this package" on launchpad and all was revealed.

  Read the article

• Access MacZFS via network from XBMC

  - by AreusAstarte

  I have a ZFS RAID (zpool with three drives) hooked up to my Mac that I want to share in my LAN so that the XBMC client on my OUYA console hooked up to the television can read the drive and use it to stream my movies and television shows onto the television set. I've searched around for a bit but so far haven't found anything that helped me with it. I know that when connecting to the Mac with SSH I can't just access the drive due to different formatting. What do I have to do so that XBMC will be able to read it? How do I share it?

  Read the article

• Limit the amount of data that can be stored in a folder on Ubuntu Server 12.04?

  - by dougoftheabaci

  I'm in the process of building my first server. It's up, it's running, I'm transferring copious amounts of data away from my horrid little Drobo (DO NOT BUY ONE OF THESE, EVER). However, there's one thing I have yet to do: I'd like to set it up for Time Machine backups as well. I've seen all the guides and I have some idea of how to set the whole thing up, but the issue is that Time Machine will just fill up as much space as you let it. So if I let it lose in my 8 TB zpool it'll slowly consume every last available sector. This, of course, is not acceptable. I have a folder at the root of my zpool called "ZFS Time Machine" and I would like to limit it to 1 TB (all I need for backup purposes). However, I have no idea how to do that. Is this possible? I can continue using a small external hard drive attached via FW800 if I have to but I'd much rather prefer putting everything on my server.

  Read the article

• Formula to calculate probability of unrecoverable read error during RAID rebuild

  - by OlafM

  I need to compare the reliability of different RAID systems with either consumer or enterprise drives. The formula to have the probability of success of a rebuild, ignoring mechanical problems, is simple: error_probability = 1 - (1-per_bit_error_rate)^bit_read and with 3 TB drives I get 38% probability to experience an URE (unrecoverable read error) for a 2+1 disks RAID5 (4.7% for enterprise drives) 21% for a RAID1 (2.4% for enterprise drives) 51% probability of error during recovery for the 3+1 RAID5 often used by users of SOHO products like Synologys. Most people don't know about this. Calculating the error for single disk tolerance is easy, my question concerns systems tolerant to multiple disks failures (RAID6/Z2, RAIDZ3 and RAID1 with multiple disks). If only the first disk is used for rebuild and the second one is read again from the beginning in case or an URE, then the error probability is the one calculated above squared (14.5% for consumer RAID5 2+1, 4.5% for consumer RAID1 1+2). However, I suppose (at least in ZFS that has full checksums!) that the second parity/available disk is read only where needed, meaning that only few sectors are needed: how many UREs can possibly happen in the first disk? not many, otherwise the error probability for single-disk tolerance systems would skyrocket even more than I calculated. If I'm correct, a second parity disk would practically lower the risk to extremely low values. Am I correct?

  Read the article

• Raid-z unaccessible after putting one disk offline

  - by varesa

  I have installed FreeNAS on a test server, with 3x 1Tb drives. They are setup in raidz. I tried to offline one of the disks (from the FreeNAS web-ui), and the array became degraded, as I think it should. The problem is with the array becoming unaccessible after that. I thought a raid like that should be able to run fine with one of the disks missing. Atleast very soon after I offline'd and pulled out the disk, the iSCSI share disappeared from a ESXi host's datastores. I also ssh'd into the FreeNAS server, and tried just executing ls /mnt/raid (/mnt/raid/ being the mount point). The whole terminal froze, not accepting ^C or anything. # zpool status -v pool: raid state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices are faulted in response to IO failures. action: Make sure the affected devices are connected, then run 'zpool clear'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-HC scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM raid DEGRADED 1 30 0 raidz1 DEGRADED 4 56 0 gptid/c8c9e44c-08e1-11e2-9ba6-001b212a83ea ONLINE 3 60 0 gptid/c96f32d5-08e1-11e2-9ba6-001b212a83ea ONLINE 3 63 0 gptid/ca208205-08e1-11e2-9ba6-001b212a83ea OFFLINE 0 0 0 errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files: /mnt/raid/ raid/iscsivol:<0x0> raid/iscsivol:<0x1> Have I understood the workings of a raidz wrong, or is there something else going on? It would not be nice to have the same thing happen on a production system...

  Read the article

• Zpool disk failure - Where am I at?

  - by JT.WK

  After checking the status of one of my zpools today, I was faced with the following: root@server: zpool status -v myPool pool: myPool state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected. action: Determine if the device needs to be replaced, and clear the errors using 'zpool clear' or replace the device with 'zpool replace'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-9P scrub: resilver completed after 3h6m with 0 errors on Tue Sep 28 11:15:11 2010 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM myPool ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spare ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t9d0 ONLINE 54 0 0 c6t36d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t10d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t11d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t12d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c6t36d0 INUSE currently in use c6t37d0 AVAIL c6t38d0 AVAIL errors: No known data errors From what I can see, c6t9d0 has encountered 54 write errors. It seems as though it has automatically resilvered with the spare disk c6t36d0, which is now currently in use. My question is, where exactly am I at? Yes the 'action' tells me to determine whether or not the disk needs replacing, but is this disk currently still in use? Can I replace / remove it? Any explanation would be much appreciated as I'm quite new to this stuff :) update: After following the advice from C10k Consulting, ie detaching: zpool detach myPool c6t9d0 and adding as a spare: zpool add myPool spare c6t9d0 It appears as though all is well. The new status of my zpool is: root@server: zpool status -v myPool pool: myPool state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed after 3h6m with 0 errors on Tue Sep 28 11:15:11 2010 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM muPool ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t36d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t10d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t11d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t12d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c6t37d0 AVAIL c6t38d0 AVAIL c6t9d0 AVAIL errors: No known data errors Thanks for your help c10k consulting :)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >