Problems replacing failing drive in ZFS pool
Charles Sprickman
spork at bway.net
Wed Jul 21 06:54:49 UTC 2010
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, alan bryan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/19/10, Dan Langille <dan at langille.org> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Dan Langille <dan at langille.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Problems replacing failing drive in ZFS pool
>>> To: "Freddie Cash" <fjwcash at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: "freebsd-stable" <freebsd-stable at freebsd.org>
>>> Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 7:07 PM
>>> On 7/19/2010 12:15 PM, Freddie Cash
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Garrett Moore<garrettmoore at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> So you think it's because when I switch from the
>>> old disk to the new disk,
>>> >> ZFS doesn't realize the disk has changed, and
>>> thinks the data is just
>>> >> corrupt now? Even if that happens, shouldn't the
>>> pool still be available,
>>> >> since it's RAIDZ1 and only one disk has gone
>>> away?
>>> > > I think it's because you pull the old drive, boot with
>>> the new drive,
>>> > the controller re-numbers all the devices (ie da3 is
>>> now da2, da2 is
>>> > now da1, da1 is now da0, da0 is now da6, etc), and ZFS
>>> thinks that all
>>> > the drives have changed, thus corrupting the
>>> pool. I've had this
>>> > happen on our storage servers a couple of times before
>>> I started using
>>> > glabel(8) on all our drives (dead drive on RAID
>>> controller, remove
>>> > drive, reboot for whatever reason, all device nodes
>>> are renumbered,
>>> > everything goes kablooey).
>>>
>>> Can you explain a bit about how you use glabel(8) in
>>> conjunction with ZFS? If I can retrofit this into an
>>> exist ZFS array to make things easier in the future...
>>>
>>> 8.0-STABLE #0: Fri Mar 5 00:46:11 EST 2010
>>>
>>> ]# zpool status
>>> pool: storage
>>> state: ONLINE
>>> scrub: none requested
>>> config:
>>>
>>> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
>>> storage
>>> ONLINE
>>> 0 0
>>> 0
>>> raidz1 ONLINE 0
>>> 0 0
>>> ad8
>>> ONLINE
>>> 0 0
>>> 0
>>> ad10 ONLINE 0
>>> 0 0
>>> ad12 ONLINE 0
>>> 0 0
>>> ad14 ONLINE 0
>>> 0 0
>>> ad16 ONLINE 0
>>> 0 0
>>>
>>> > Of course, always have good backups. ;)
>>>
>>> In my case, this ZFS array is the backup. ;)
>>>
>>> But I'm setting up a tape library, real soon now....
>>>
>>> -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org
>>> mailing list
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>>
>>
>> Dan,
>>
>> Here's how to do it after the fact:
>>
>> http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/current/2009-07/msg00623.html
>
> Two things:
>
> -What's the preferred labelling method for disks that will be used with zfs
> these days? geom_label or gpt labels? I've been using the latter and I find
> them a little simpler.
>
> -I think that if you already are using gpt partitioning, you can add a gpt
> label after the fact (ie: gpart -i index# -l your_label adaX). "gpart list"
> will give you a list of index numbers.
Oops.
That should be "gpart modify -i index# -l your_label adax".
> Charles
>
>> --Alan Bryan
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
More information about the freebsd-stable
mailing list