Search Results

Search found 26 results on 2 pages for 'raidz'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • grow/shrink a zfs RAIDZ

    - by c2h2
    I'm going to build a freenas server, would like to make sure what I can do with such magical and advanced zfs. If I have 5 * 3TB disks in RAIDZ (12TB storage in total), now I am trying to add another 2 * 3TB disks to this existing array. Q: Am I able to do it without affect/touch any existing data on RAIDZ volume? What about take away some existing disk? say take away 1 disk out of the 5 disks, assuming only very small portion of data exists on the raidz.

    Read the article

  • Raidz in FreeNAS eating more space than expected

    - by swood
    I just got 6 new 2TB drives, and added them to my FreeNAS box. I have only dealt with RAID1 previously, and each setup has given what I was expecting. However, with the 6*2TB drives, I wanted to maximize the space available, so I went with raidz. But I seem to be missing space. I have 8.6TB available after the raidz was built. Maybe I did my math horribly wrong, but (N-1) x S(min) (where N=6 and S(min)=2TB) should result in 10TB. (I understand it would be more like 9.something) Does raidz actually consume more then 1 drive worth of space? Or could their possibly be another problem? (All drives have been independently verified that 2TB of space is available)

    Read the article

  • RAIDZ vs RAID1+0

    - by Hiro2k
    Hi guys I just got 4 SSDs for my FreeNAS box. This server is only used to serve a single iSCSI extent to my Citrix XenServer pool and was wondering if I should setup them up in a RAIDZ or a RAID 1+0 configuration. This isn't used for anything in production, just for my test lab so I'm not sure which one is going to be better in this scenario. Will I see a major difference in speed or reliability? Currently the server has three 500GB Western Digital Blue drives and it's dog slow when I deploy a new version of our software on it, hence the upgrade.

    Read the article

  • ZFS: RAIDZ versus stripe with ditto blocks

    - by RandomInsano
    I'm going to build a ZFS file server from FreeBSD. I learned recently that I can't expand a RAIDZ udev once it's part of the pool. That's a problem since I'm a home user and will probably add one disk a year tops. But what if I set copies=3 against my entire pool and just throw individual drives into the pool separated? I've read somewheres that the copies will try and distribute across drives if possible. Is there a guarantee there? I really just want protection from bit rot and drive failure on the cheap. Speed's not an issue since it'll go over a 1Gb network and at MOST stream 720p podcasts. Would my data be guaranteed safe from a single drive failure? Are there things I'm not considering? Any and all input is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Possible to write an implement of RAIDZ or RAIDZ2 for the MD driver in the Linux kernel?

    - by Pharaun
    I am curious on if it is possible to have an implement of RAIDZ and/or RAIDZ2 in the MD driver in the Linux kernel? From my understanding of it is that the RAIDZ version is equivalent to a RAID 5, and that a RAIDZ2 is equivalent to a RAID 6. The main difference is that the stripe size can be variable for RAIDZ as opposite to RAID 5/6 from my understanding, which helps performance. So what I am wondering is would it be possible to add this performance enhancing technique to RAID 5 & 6 in the MD driver in the kernel? Or is it tied too closely to how the ZFS works?

    Read the article

  • Restoring an Ubuntu Server using ZFS RAIDZ for data

    - by andybjackson
    Having become disillusioned with hacking Buffalo NAS devices, I've decided to roll my own Home server. After some research, I have settled on an HP Proliant Microserver with Ubuntu Server and ZFS (OS on 1 Ext4 disk, Data on 3 RAIDZ disks). As Joel Spolsky and Geoff Atwood say with regards to backup, I can't rest until I have done a restore in all of the failure scenarios that I am seeking to protect against. Q: How to configure Ubuntu Server to recognise a pre-existing RAIDZ array? Clearly if one of the data disks die - then that is a resilvering scenario, which is well documented. If two of the data disks die, then I am into regular backup/restore land. If the OS dies and I can restore, also an easy scenario. But if the OS dies and I can't restore, then I need to recreate an Ubuntu server. But how do I get this to recognise my RAID-Z array? Is the necessary configuration information stored within and across the RAIZ array and simply need to be found (if so, how)? Or does it reside on the OS ext4 disk (in which case how do I recreate it)?

    Read the article

  • Expanding raidz vdev

    - by Blubber
    I'm currently planning on installing FreeBSD 9 on my home server. The machine has 4x 1.5TB disks, and at some point, when HDD prices drop I'll be upgrading to something bigger, perhaps 3TB. The disks are connected to an IBM ServerRaid m1015 in IT mode, this card has room for up to eight disks. Now here is the problem, currently the 4x 1.5TB will be connected to the m1015. Then when prices drop I'll be adding something like 4x 3TB, also connected to the m1015. No problem yet, I can just run 2 raidz2 vdevs and put them in the same pool. But, at some point the 1.5TBs will start to break, or I will have to upgrade them when the pool runs out of space. So I started researching if it's possible to expand a raidz vdev, and I found several pages explaining the same procedure, like this on SF: How to upgrade a ZFS RAID-Z array to larger disks on OpenSolaris?. So I went a head and tried that in vmware, I installed FreeBSD 9 and created 6 virtual disks, 3 of 1GB each and 3 of 10GB each. After building a raidz vdev of the 1GBs I replaced them one by one with the 10GB, but the pool did not increase in size. Is this a limitation of the ZFS implementation in FreeBSD? Or am I just doing something wrong?

    Read the article

  • Zfs Drive config on FreeNas

    - by Martyn
    Couple of related questions. Background: I have a stock of drives lying about that I want to use in a HP Proliant Microserver which has a 4 slot SAS cage with FreeNas. I don't want to spend any more on parts. 1) With Zfs and RAIDZ, how bad would it be to mix 2 x 1TB Seagate Barracudas with 2 x 1TB WD Green drives. The latter Green drives are I believe only 5,400 RPM, but I can't find that info for sure. 2) Which would be better, the above mis-match in a RAIDZ or 2 x 3TB Seagate Barracuda in a mirror. Considering both performance and data security 3) I have a spare 250GB drive and a spare SATA slot (for optical drive, not sure on speed) as well, would that be a performance gain to use that for the ZIL and L2ARC (over just using the main drives). Thanks in advance.

    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

  • Start a ZFS RAIDZ zpool with two discs then add a third?

    - by Doug S.
    Let's say I have two 2TB HDDs and I want to start my first ZFS zpool. Is it possible to create a RAIDZ with just those two discs, giving me 2TB of usable storage (if I understand it right) and then later add another 2TB HDD bringing the total to 4TB of usable storage. Am I correct or does there need to be three HDDs to start with? The reason I ask is I already have one 2TB drive I'm using that's full of files. I want to transition to a zpool but I'd rather only buy two more 2TB drives if I can. From what I understand, RAIDZ behaves similarly to RAID5 (with some major differences, I know, but in terms of capacity). However, RAID5 requires 3+ drives. I was wondering if RAIDZ has the same requirement. If I have to, I can buy the three drives and just start there, later adding the fourth, but if I could start with two and move to three that would save me $80.

    Read the article

  • ZFS Recover from Faulted Pool State

    - by nickv2002
    I have a six disk ZFS raidz1 pool and had a recent failure requiring a disk replacement. No problem normally, but this time my server hardware died before I could do the replacement (but after and unrelated to the drive failure as far as I can tell). I was able to get another machine from a friend to rebuild the system, but in the process of moving my drives over I had to swap their cables around a bunch until I got the right configuration where the remaining 5 good disks were seen as online. This process seems to have generated some checksum errors for the pool/raidz. I have the 5 remaining drives set up now and a good drive installed and ready to take the place of the drive that died. However, since my pool state is FAULTED I'm unable to do the replacement. root@zfs:~# zpool replace tank 1298243857915644462 /dev/sdb cannot open 'tank': pool is unavailable Is there any way to recover from this error? I would think that having 5 of the 6 drives online would be enough to rebuild the right data, but that doesn't seem to be enough now. Here's the status log of my pool: root@zfs:~# zpool status tank pool: tank state: FAULTED status: One or more devices could not be used because the label is missing or invalid. There are insufficient replicas for the pool to continue functioning. action: Destroy and re-create the pool from a backup source. see: http://zfsonlinux.org/msg/ZFS-8000-5E scan: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank FAULTED 0 0 1 corrupted data raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 8 sdd ONLINE 0 0 0 sdf ONLINE 0 0 0 sdh ONLINE 0 0 0 1298243857915644462 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 was /dev/sdb1 sde ONLINE 0 0 0 sdg ONLINE 0 0 0 Update (10/31): I tried to export and re-import the array a few times over the past week and wasn't successful. First I tried: zpool import -f -R /tank -N -o readonly=on -F tank That produced this error immediately: cannot import 'tank': I/O error Destroy and re-create the pool from a backup source. I added the '-X' option to the above command to try to make it check the transaction log. I let that run for about 48 hours before giving up because it had completely locked up my machine (I was unable to log in locally or via the network). Now I'm trying a simple zpool import tank command and that seems to run for a while with no output. I'll leave it running overnight to see if it outputs anything.

    Read the article

  • Too much free space on FreeNAS - ZFS

    - by Guillaume
    I have a FreeNAS server with 3 x 2 To disks in raidz1. I would expect to have about 4 To of space available. When I run zpool list I get: [root@freenas] ~# zpool list NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT main_volume 5.44T 3.95T 1.49T 72% ONLINE /mnt I was expecting a size of 4 To. Also, used space as reported by zpool list does not match what's reported by du: [root@freenas] ~# du -sh /mnt/main_volume/ 2.6T /mnt/main_volume/ There are quite a few things that I dont yet completely understand about ZFS. But at the moment I am mostly worried that I misconfigured my system and that I dont have any storage redundancy. How can I make sure I did not do an horrible mistake ... For the sake of completeness, here is the output of zpool status: [root@freenas] ~# zpool status pool: main_volume state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM main_volume ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 gptid/d8584e45-5b8a-11d9-b9ea-5404a6630115 ONLINE 0 0 0 gptid/d8f7df30-5b8a-11d9-b9ea-5404a6630115 ONLINE 0 0 0 gptid/d9877cc3-5b8a-11d9-b9ea-5404a6630115 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors

    Read the article

  • How ZFS handles online replacement in a RAID-Z (theoretical)

    - by Kevin
    This is a somewhat theoretical question about ZFS and RAID-Z. I'll use a three disk single-parity array as an example for clarity, but the problem can be extended to any number of disks and any parity. Suppose we have disks A, B, and C in the pool, and that it is clean. Suppose now that we physically add disk D with the intention of replacing disk C, and that disk C is still functioning correctly and is only being replaced out of preventive maintenance. Some admins might just yank C and install D, which is a little more organized as devices need not change IDs - however this does leave the array degraded temporarily and so for this example suppose we install D without offlining or removing C. Solaris docs indicate that we can replace a disk without first offlining it, using a command such as: zpool replace pool C D This should cause a resilvering onto D. Let us say that resilvering proceeds "downwards" along a "cursor." (I don't know the actual terminology used in the internal implementation.) Suppose now that midways through the resilvering, disk A fails. In theory, this should be recoverable, as above the cursor B and D contain sufficient parity and below the cursor B and C contain sufficient parity. However, whether or not this is actually recoverable depnds upon internal design decisions in ZFS which I am not aware of (and which the manual doesn't say in certain terms). If ZFS continues to send writes to C below the cursor, then we are fine. If, however, ZFS internally treats C as though it were gone, resilvering D only from parity between A and B and only writing A and B below the cursor, then we're toast. Some experimenting could answer this question but I was hoping maybe someone on here already knows which way ZFS handles this situation. Thank you in advance for any insight!

    Read the article

  • ZFS: Mirror vs. RAID-Z

    - by John Clayton
    I'm planning on building a file server using OpenSolaris and ZFS that will provide two primary services - be an iSCSI target for XenServer virtual machines & be a general home file server. The hardware I'm looking at includes 2x 4-port SATA controllers, 2x small boot drives (one on each controller), and 4x big drives for storage. This allows one free port per controller for upgrading the array down the road. Where I'm a little confused is how to setup the storage drives. For performance, mirroring appears to be king. I'm having a hard time seeing what the benefit would be of using RAIDZ over mirroring would be. With this setup I can see two options - two mirrored pools in one stripe, or RAIDZ2. Both should protect against 2 drive failures, and/or one controller failure...the only benefit of RAIDZ2 would be that any 2 drives could fail. The storage should be 50% of capacity in both cases, but the first should have much better performance, right? The other thing I'm trying to wrap my mind around is the benefit of mirrored arrays with more than two devices. For data integrity what, if any, would be the benefit of a RAIDZ over a three-way mirror? Since ZFS maintains file integrity what does RAIDZ bring to the table...doesn't ZFS's integrity checks negate the value of RAIDZ's parity?

    Read the article

  • ZFS Basics

    - by user12614620
    Stage 1 basics: creating a pool # zpool create $NAME $REDUNDANCY $DISK1_0..N [$REDUNDANCY $DISK2_0..N]... $NAME = name of the pool you're creating. This will also be the name of the first filesystem and, by default, be placed at the mountpoint "/$NAME" $REDUNDANCY = either mirror or raidzN, and N can be 1, 2, or 3. If you leave N off, then it defaults to 1. $DISK1_0..N = the disks assigned to the pool. Example 1: zpool create tank mirror c4t1d0 c4t2d0 name of pool: tank redundancy: mirroring disks being mirrored: c4t1d0 and c4t2d0 Capacity: size of a single disk Example 2: zpool create tank raidz c4t1d0 c4t2d0 c4t3d0 c4t4d0 c4t5d0 Here the redundancy is raidz, and there are five disks, in a 4+1 (4 data, 1 parity) config. This means that the capacity is 4 times the disk size. If the command used "raidz2" instead, then the config would be 3+2. Likewise, "raidz3" would be a 2+3 config. Example 3: zpool create tank mirror c4t1d0 c4t2d0 mirror c4t3d0 c4t4d0 This is the same as the first mirror example, except there are two mirrors now. ZFS will stripe data across both mirrors, which means that writing data will go a bit faster. Note: you cannot create a mirror of two raidzs. You can create a raidz of mirrors, but to do that requires trickery.

    Read the article

  • How to recover zfs pool when root fs fails

    - by rage
    I have a FreeBSD 8.0 amd64 box w/ 1 ATA drive for system and 4 SATA drives as a RAIDZ pool. The ATA drive isn't mirrored nor part of any pool, but also doesn't hold any valuable data. How can I recover my zpool if this ATA drive fails for any reason, but assume my RAIDZ vdev SATA drives remain intact? Should I also use at least a mirror configuration for that?

    Read the article

  • How to recover zfs pool when root fs fails?

    - by user27138
    I have a FreeBSD 8.0 amd64 box w/ 1 ATA drive for system root and 4 SATA drives as a RAIDZ pool. The ATA drive isn't mirrored nor part of any pool, but also doesn't hold any valuable data (other then the system). How can I recover my zpool if this ATA drive fails for any reason, but assume my RAIDZ vdev SATA drives remain intact? Should I also use at least a mirror configuration for that?

    Read the article

  • Copying files to zfs mountpoint doesn't work - the files aren't actually copied to the other filesystem,

    - by user113904
    I have 3 x 4 TB disks in a NAS that I want to group together and access as if they were one whole 'unit' of some kind. I also have a 250GB disk containing the OS - this is full of films and tv shows currently. I thought zfs sounded good so I created a raidz zpool, after installing the ppa sudo zpool create store raidz /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd and set the mountpoint to /mnt/store sudo zfs set mountpoint=/mnt/store /store checked it was successful - I think it was sudo zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT store 266K 7.16T 170K /mnt/store Then I wanted to move over a whole load of files from my home directory. I went to where the to-be-copied folder was (called media) and entered sudo cp -R * /mnt/store cp: cannot create directory `/mnt/store/media': No space left on device It seems like it's not copying over to the new filesystem I made (or thought I did). I've never really done this type of thing until a few days ago so may be running before I can walk... is this not the right way to copy files across? I've only used windows before so the idea of mountpoints is a bit mind boggling. I'm using XBMCbuntu 12 beta 2.0 which is based on 12.04. Will retry with normal Ubuntu 12.04 desktop to see if that's the problem. thanks for the help!

    Read the article

  • Upgraded Ubuntu, all drives in one zpool marked unavailable

    - by Matt Sieker
    I just upgraded Ubuntu 14.04, and I had two ZFS pools on the server. There was some minor issue with me fighting with the ZFS driver and the kernel version, but that's worked out now. One pool came online, and mounted fine. The other didn't. The main difference between the tool is one was just a pool of disks (video/music storage), and the other was a raidz set (documents, etc) I've already attempted exporting and re-importing the pool, to no avail, attempting to import gets me this: root@kyou:/home/matt# zpool import -fFX -d /dev/disk/by-id/ pool: storage id: 15855792916570596778 state: UNAVAIL status: One or more devices contains corrupted data. action: The pool cannot be imported due to damaged devices or data. see: http://zfsonlinux.org/msg/ZFS-8000-5E config: storage UNAVAIL insufficient replicas raidz1-0 UNAVAIL insufficient replicas ata-SAMSUNG_HD103SJ_S246J90B134910 UNAVAIL ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51422523 UNAVAIL ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51535969 UNAVAIL The symlinks for those in /dev/disk/by-id also exist: root@kyou:/home/matt# ls -l /dev/disk/by-id/ata-SAMSUNG_HD103SJ_S246J90B134910* /dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 May 27 19:31 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-SAMSUNG_HD103SJ_S246J90B134910 -> ../../sdb lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 May 27 19:15 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-SAMSUNG_HD103SJ_S246J90B134910-part1 -> ../../sdb1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 May 27 19:15 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-SAMSUNG_HD103SJ_S246J90B134910-part9 -> ../../sdb9 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 May 27 19:15 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51422523 -> ../../sdd lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 May 27 19:15 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51422523-part1 -> ../../sdd1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 May 27 19:15 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51422523-part9 -> ../../sdd9 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 May 27 19:15 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51535969 -> ../../sde lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 May 27 19:15 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51535969-part1 -> ../../sde1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 May 27 19:15 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51535969-part9 -> ../../sde9 Inspecting the various /dev/sd* devices listed, they appear to be the correct ones (The 3 1TB drives that were in a raidz array). I've run zdb -l on each drive, dumping it to a file, and running a diff. The only difference on the 3 are the guid fields (Which I assume is expected). All 3 labels on each one are basically identical, and are as follows: version: 5000 name: 'storage' state: 0 txg: 4 pool_guid: 15855792916570596778 hostname: 'kyou' top_guid: 1683909657511667860 guid: 8815283814047599968 vdev_children: 1 vdev_tree: type: 'raidz' id: 0 guid: 1683909657511667860 nparity: 1 metaslab_array: 33 metaslab_shift: 34 ashift: 9 asize: 3000569954304 is_log: 0 create_txg: 4 children[0]: type: 'disk' id: 0 guid: 8815283814047599968 path: '/dev/disk/by-id/ata-SAMSUNG_HD103SJ_S246J90B134910-part1' whole_disk: 1 create_txg: 4 children[1]: type: 'disk' id: 1 guid: 18036424618735999728 path: '/dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51422523-part1' whole_disk: 1 create_txg: 4 children[2]: type: 'disk' id: 2 guid: 10307555127976192266 path: '/dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51535969-part1' whole_disk: 1 create_txg: 4 features_for_read: Stupidly, I do not have a recent backup of this pool. However, the pool was fine before reboot, and Linux sees the disks fine (I have smartctl running now to double check) So, in summary: I upgraded Ubuntu, and lost access to one of my two zpools. The difference between the pools is the one that came up was JBOD, the other was zraid. All drives in the unmountable zpool are marked UNAVAIL, with no notes for corrupted data The pools were both created with disks referenced from /dev/disk/by-id/. Symlinks from /dev/disk/by-id to the various /dev/sd devices seems to be correct zdb can read the labels from the drives. Pool has already been attempted to be exported/imported, and isn't able to import again. Is there some sort of black magic I can invoke via zpool/zfs to bring these disks back into a reasonable array? Can I run zpool create zraid ... without losing my data? Is my data gone anyhow?

    Read the article

  • ZFS/Btrfs/LVM2-like storage with advanced features on Linux?

    - by Easter Sunshine
    I have 3 identical internal 7200 RPM SATA hard disk drives on a Linux machine. I'm looking for a storage set-up that will give me all of this: Different data sets (filesystems or subtrees) can have different RAID levels so I can choose performance, space overhead, and risk trade-offs differently for different data sets while having a few number of physical disks (very important data can be 3xRAID1, important data can be 3xRAID5, unimportant reproducible data can be 3xRAID0). If each data set has an explicit size or size limit, then the ability to grow and shrink the size limit (offline if need be) Avoid out-of-kernel modules R/W or read-only COW snapshots. If it's a block-level snapshots, the filesystem should be synced and quiesced during a snapshot. Ability to add physical disks and then grow/redistribute RAID1, RAID5, and RAID0 volumes to take advantage of the new spindle and make sure no spindle is hotter than the rest (e.g., in NetApp, growing a RAID-DP raid group by a few disks will not balance the I/O across them without an explicit redistribution) Not required but nice-to-haves: Transparent compression, per-file or subtree. Even better if, like NetApps, analyzes the data first for compressibility and only compresses compressible data Deduplication that doesn't have huge performance penalties or require obscene amounts of memory (NetApp does scheduled deduplication on weekends, which is good) Resistance to silent data corruption like ZFS (this is not required because I have never seen ZFS report any data corruption on these specific disks) Storage tiering, either automatic (based on caching rules) or user-defined rules (yes, I have all-identical disks now but this will let me add a read/write SSD cache in the future). If it's user-defined rules, these rules should have the ability to promote to SSD on a file level and not a block level. Space-efficient packing of small files I tried ZFS on Linux but the limitations were: Upgrading is additional work because the package is in an external repository and is tied to specific kernel versions; it is not integrated with the package manager Write IOPS does not scale with number of devices in a raidz vdev. Cannot add disks to raidz vdevs Cannot have select data on RAID0 to reduce overhead and improve performance without additional physical disks or giving ZFS a single partition of the disks ext4 on LVM2 looks like an option except I can't tell whether I can shrink, extend, and redistribute onto new spindles RAID-type logical volumes (of course, I can experiment with LVM on a bunch of files). As far as I can tell, it doesn't have any of the nice-to-haves so I was wondering if there is something better out there. I did look at LVM dangers and caveats but then again, no system is perfect.

    Read the article

  • How stable is zfs-fuse 0.6.9 on Linux?

    - by Mavrik
    I'm thinking of using ZFS for my home-made NAS array. I would have 4 HDDs in raidz on a Ubuntu Server 10.04 machine. I'd like to use the snapshot capability and dedup when storing data. I'm not so much concerned about the speed, since the machine is accessed via N wireless network and that is probably going to be the bottleneck. So does anyone have any practical experience with zfs-fuse 0.6.9 on such (or simillar) configuration?

    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

  • Is there a way to get Drobo-like functionality out of ZFS (or some other free FS)? [closed]

    - by Steve Rowe
    I really like the concept of the Drobo, I just don't like the speed. I want the redundancy and easy upgradeability of the Drobo, but faster. I would love to be able to build something on my own. ZFS seems like a good place to start, but it has either upgradeability or redundancy (RAIDZ) but not both. To clarify, I want to be able to have an array of disks which are expandable by just adding a drive and have redundancy built in. I found instructions for making zfs act like a Drobo, but they are quite complicated and upgrading is a lot of work. Has anyone automated something like what is described there? Is there a different file system I should be looking at?

    Read the article

  • zfs setup question

    - by Staale
    Currently I have a linux storage box and server with 4x750gb harddrives in raid-5 with ext3. I have ordered 3x1.5tb disks to upgrade this. Here is my planned upgrade: Backup: Format the 1.5 tb disks Copy all data from the raid-5 disks to the 1.5tb disks Destroy the raid-5 array. New setup: Create a VirtualBox system and install Nexenta (OpenSolaris + ubuntu) on it. Create a zfs pool with zraid1 with the 4 750gb disks. Copy from 1.5tb disks to the virtualbox zfs pool Format the 1.5tb disks. Replace 3 off the 750gb disks with 1.5tb disks. Reuse the 750gb disks elsewhere. The reason I wish to use one 750gb disk is since I can't grow the disk count in a raidz array, and this gives me the option off replacing that disk later for an extra 750gb storage. Would the ZFS performance be good running through virtualbox? Or will the performance overhead be too large? Will I get 1.5tb+1.5tb+750gb storage on the zraid? Or just 750gbx3 until all disks are 1.5tb?

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >