Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:02:15 -0400 From: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Problems replacing failing drive in ZFS pool Message-ID: <4C478A87.9070102@langille.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinWnFdglVxZwSso5_PHH1LtDzjgH4MaVAmqVJHL@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTimOrwHe7xiwoap2H2mUtA7vU6TjENkPC4yJ02_z@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimOIgCIO4txpPeeoMrRSYAqM25V7cm-h7djmZUC@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikPOgIqkm3GhIsEnvuvEHvlc44cnh6GJQ1k7Ja_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTillT4yA5EJtcFUyhCUtD7b14u1n7svv02Y2IcqL@mail.gmail.com> <4C4504DF.30602@langille.org> <AANLkTinWnFdglVxZwSso5_PHH1LtDzjgH4MaVAmqVJHL@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/19/2010 10:50 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Dan Langille<dan@langille.org> wrote: > >> 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... >> > > If you've used whole disks in ZFS, you can't retrofit it if by retrofit you > mean an almost painless method of resolving this. GEOM setup stuff > generally should happen BEFORE the file system is on it. > > You would create your partition(s) slightly smaller than the disk, label it, > then use the resulting device as your zfs device when creating the pool. If > you have an existing full disk install, that means restoring the data after > you've done those steps. It works just as well with MBR style partitioning, > there's nothing saying you have to use GPT. GPT is just better though in > terms of ease of use IMO among other things. FYI, this is exactly what I'm doing to do. I have obtained addition HDD to serve as temporary storage. I will also use them for practicing the commands before destroying the original array. I'll post my plan to the list for review. -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C478A87.9070102>