-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[feature request] implement delphix device removal #3371
Comments
@ahrens said that outside help is needed: https://twitter.com/mahrens1/status/665006514411806720 |
Link to the code: delphix/delphix-os@db775ef |
@behlendorf is there any chance this feature can be lobbied in the developers' circles? this feature would make zfs even more awesome! it's a bit frustrating to have to destroy and recreate pools in order to remove a device or vdev from a pool. even an offline version would be sufficient, there is no need for live removal. |
According to @ahrens, in addition to the original commit mentioned above:
|
Excuse me barging in (it's just that I could have done with this feature after accidentally adding a stripe instead of a mirror during a multi-TB data migration exercise! Set back several days now)... Do I have it right that this is now implemented upstream? |
The post you referenced is correct in that it's in DelphixOS, but that's not really "upstream" for ZoL. Upstream is OpenZFS/illumos, where this feature is not yet integrated, but there is a pull request out for it: openzfs/openzfs#251 (Note that the PR supercedes the list of Delphix commits earlier in this thread.) We would appreciate any help with porting it to ZoL! |
hrm, I should really go and learn C so I can be more useful with these things. I might set that as a goal for this year so I may be more use in the future. Anyways in my case, the send/destroy/recreate/receive is going faster than I thought it would. As an alternative solution to the problem I hit (which I understand to be one of the biggest ZFS gotchas), as a layer of protection against accidentally and irreversibly adding single-disc/non-redundant stripes to a pool, what about the possibility of having the zpool command refuse to stripe by default? Say, if there were a module option safe_add, if it were set to 1, (I hope I have my terminology right there, correct me if wrong). ie, instead of Has something like this been discussed before, or do you think it's worth discussing the possibility of such a change? (edited to fix typos and clarify) |
@awnz ZFS already has this type of protection built in. If you make a mistake with
|
Oh crap, did I do -f? ( Oh now I feel stupid. I must have misread the error message. I'm going to quietly sneak out of the room now. Lesson learned: read and understand those error messages, don't be so quick to use -f This was on home data. Lesson learned for when I implement this at work... |
Closing. The device removal feature has been merged to OpenZFS and is being ported to ZoL in PR #6900. |
I've created this to track progress on
http://blog.delphix.com/alex/2015/01/15/openzfs-device-removal/
If you know more, please add links or comments.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: