From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 11 17:24:40 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C51A1065673 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:24:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FBA8FC14 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:24:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxe4 with SMTP id 4so2425865fxe.13 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:24:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=y+0u9YYAs7ZsOpQgOFY2yTKDIe6JPkWcrCUZtq0iHSg=; b=c0s64JCo1tGowwLJZmird+ewRh0kbEJULJ58JMn1RIbZ3O1JD2lrWQXH5qb6/x+N+b AlO8X3t1GGwVOeqYahrvTzQ4v+U3rKpGniu1WtvFzvycDqLLr4ucYhrUf+xX10fHWAAd dIIkSWmJFWWxoGtRoQcayuYqa1LYDBsCOs2Ks= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.10.143 with SMTP id p15mr13067815fap.12.1313083478909; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.120.72 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:24:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110811165140.GA1421@icarus.home.lan> References: <20110811160314.GA25076@cons.org> <20110811165140.GA1421@icarus.home.lan> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:24:38 -0500 Message-ID: From: Adam Vande More To: Jeremy Chadwick Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Martin Cracauer Subject: Re: ZFS zpool mirror drive replacement confusion X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:24:40 -0000 On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > The problem is something I have run into myself many times. It's a > syntax-specific "quirk" with the zpool command, and ONLY applies when > working with mirrors. Furthermore, the "gotcha" may be gone with ZFSv28 > (which you aren't running); I'm not sure. > > The "quirk" is that you have to specify the name of an existing > (working) mirror device *before* the new device you're attempting to > integrate. E.g. "zpool {command} pool {existingdev} {newdev}", rather > than "zpool {command} pool {newdev}". Failure to provide the name of > the device of the existing mirror member results in the pool becoming > a stripe, which you have no way to recover from without recreating the > entire pool. > > I would show you an example but all my systems run ZFSv28 and I can't > seem to find any online documentation which helps back up my statement. > I hope someone else here can phrase what I'm trying to say in a more > eloquent manner and provide documentation/references confirming it. > I think you mean this but I'm not sure I'd agree it's a quirk. If there is an understanding of zpools, mirrors, and vdev's it seems like a logical syntax. However, the unforgiving nature of vdev's does put some fear in me whenever I make an change. http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide#Disk_Replacement_Example -- Adam Vande More