Skip to main content

partition - Native ZFS Configuration on Ubuntu

itemprop="text">

I'm experimenting with Native-ZFS on
Ubuntu right now. Here are the drives installed on the
system:





  • 2 x
    2TB

  • 3 x 1TB

  • a 200GB
    operating system
    disk



I've got the OS
installed and the stable ZFS RC for 12.04 installed via the
PPA.



In terms of ZFS configuration, I'd like to
get the maximum theoretical capacity with 1 drive failure protection (so 5TB). I was
planning on this
configuration:





  • 1
    zpool:


    • 1 4TB RAIDZ
      vdev:


      • 3 x 1TB
        drives

      • 2 x 1TB partitions, one from each of the 2TB
        drives



    • 1 1TB
      Mirrored vdev:


      • 2 x 1TB partitions,
        one from each of the 2TB
        drives





First
off, does this configuration make sense? Is there a better way to achieve 5TB (such as a
7 x 1TB RAIDZ2)? I'm not terribly concerned with performance (although I am somewhat
concerned with
upgradeability).




Secondly, can
anybody point me to a guide (or show me) the ZFS incantations to create such a (mildly
complicated) pool? All of the guides I've found create a 1-1 zpool-vdev and use the
entire raw disk, not partitions. Most of the documentation I've found for ZFS regarding
partitions is BSD or Solaris dependent, and I'm not sure how much of it applies to
Linux.



Thanks!



Answer




the only difference between using the whole disk to create a pool and part of a
disk is that you have to partition the disk first. so on your 2 TB drives, create 2
partitions, each 1 TB, using whatever partition tool you choose. (that would not be a
zfs utility, but instead something like
fdisk.)



then when you issue your zpool command,
pass the partition instead of the
drive:



zpool create tank1 raidz
/dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sde1
/dev/sdf1



and
the same for the 1 TB
mirror:



zpool create tank2 mirror
/dev/sde2 /dev/sdf2


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able