From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Oct 8 17:16:36 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9052C9D2399 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:16:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aurfalien@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6101AC7A for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:16:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aurfalien@gmail.com) Received: by pabve7 with SMTP id ve7so1582922pab.2 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:16:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=z7W0d6iWimEqUV8QirJPD4VzjlVERLxKWhdyjioqZIk=; b=uVH+LZsb7Dp8vBxW0Pq5jICfIzQtQtF94VDjCm0C9p3ir/Kk0c1kqdFD45AoSroNtr kNiUXTilNclsn0cneEpNzRXz1YIKxeNuIO3/8rsBJgbWxtPUMIp+Gk0mW6h2GQkP+ruf OgBVOLdu5RFpS6JJSqGL/d9x+ZGbglYOEOwp46jvoPVGGfhM9j40GqZYfRc5J4PjnUwS 1yszyaFKDaumY8Xm1jvlu1MFbRqnfYJajbUFnKZdD1UhtsuauwkTxn4B6ZaS4FInGiJx YV+OuKEVRmO3tXrcT1lsj3LayzShdqZUVE3RAL3gn3QVg+nuS/HT+USy5ASlpXjpx965 +VRg== X-Received: by 10.66.139.70 with SMTP id qw6mr9275062pab.142.1444324595936; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from briankrusicw.logan.tv ([64.17.255.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gw3sm46576298pbc.46.2015.10.08.10.16.34 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: ZFS best resilver settings? From: aurfalien In-Reply-To: <5616565B.8030802@sneakertech.com> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:16:33 -0700 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-Id: References: <5615D856.4000801@sneakertech.com> <56161935.9040405@FreeBSD.org> <5616565B.8030802@sneakertech.com> To: Quartz X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:16:36 -0000 These settings help quicken my resilver times; vfs.zfs.resilver_delay 0 vfs.zfs.resilver_min_time_ms 5000 Also I check the disks regularly via cron and have this set; vfs.zfs.scrub_delay 0 As they say, HTH. - aurf "Janitorial Services" On Oct 8, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Quartz wrote: >> Resilvering doesn't necessarily trigger disk failures more frequently >> when done quickly as when done slowly -- if a disk spot has worn out = and >> will fail on next access, then resilvering will eventually reach it >> however fast it runs. Ultimately, it's best to get the system back to >> full resilience promptly. >=20 >> then it may be worth >> while taking the temporary hit on performance and priotising = resilvering >> just so you can get it over with. >=20 > Well, that's why I stated rebuilding as the only goal. Performance can = be degraded for a bit if it gives a better chance of getting the array = back before another drive dies. I was more interested on a technical = level if adjusting the resilver priority has any statistical impact on = other drives failing. Besides sectors going bad, you can also have head = crashes and controller failures and all sorts of other things. I'm = wondering if there's a 'best practice' for minimizing that. >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"