[OpenIndiana-discuss] zpool replace says the disk has a different sector alignment

[Reginald Beardsley]

Those certainly look OK. I've read over my admin notes from earlier this year.  Unfortunately not very good notes.  I got  most things working, but it's not clear I really knew what I was doing :-(  I'm still unable to get sd.conf to set the physical size for my 3 TB USB disk correctly despite making certain that the strings *exactly* match what the source code wants.

What OS release was the pool built with?  Could it be that an update has resulted in zfs not being willing to do what it did when the pool was created?  In that case rolling back to the BE that built the pool might let you add the disk in w/ ashift=9.  

However, I don't think that changes the need to rebuild the pool w/ ashift=12.  For ashift=9 to be correct prior to the firmware update, the controller would have to have been doing the RMW buffering internally.  It seems strange that they would remove such a feature.  You might want to look for messages in old log files from prior to the update if you still have them.  My notes don't reflect it, but I seem to recall that I managed to build  an improperly aligned pool, but did not see any console messages and was not looking at /var/adm/messages until performance testing showed very poor performance.  It may be you've stumbled across an old problem you didn't know you had.

Good luck,
Reg



--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 11/21/13, Francis Swasey <Frank.Swasey at uvm.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] zpool replace says the disk has a different sector alignment
 To: "Discussion list for OpenIndiana" <openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org>
 Date: Thursday, November 21, 2013, 6:20 AM
 
 On Nov 20, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Reginald
 Beardsley <pulaskite at yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 
 > 
 > What does:
 > 
 > echo ::sd_state | mdb -k | egrep '(^un|_blocksize)'
 > 
 > report?
 
 un 1: ffffff08ff561300
     un_sys_blocksize = 0x200
     un_tgt_blocksize = 0x200
     un_phy_blocksize = 0x1000
     un_f_tgt_blocksize_is_valid = 0x1
 un 2: ffffff091e10c080
     un_sys_blocksize = 0x200
     un_tgt_blocksize = 0x200
     un_phy_blocksize = 0x1000
     un_f_tgt_blocksize_is_valid = 0x1
 un 3: ffffff090dfea300
     un_sys_blocksize = 0x200
     un_tgt_blocksize = 0x200
     un_phy_blocksize = 0x1000
     un_f_tgt_blocksize_is_valid = 0x1
 
 (that's the first three disks in the jbod.  "un 1" is
 the new disk.
 
 > 
 > In particular does the kernel think the disk parameters
 for old and new drives are the same?
 
 Yes, it does.
 
 Frank
 
 -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
 
 _______________________________________________
 OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
 OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org
 http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss