Cannot Import Existing Pool Insufficient Replicas

[blur]

Hi i need help to import my existing pool. Currently i run Truenas in Proxmox. Suddenly my Pool is not detected and i reboot the server. After reboot the pool show offline and i try to import using Storage > Import Pool but no pool is showing in the dropdown. After that i try using shell command and it show as below

Code:

root@truenas[~]# zpool import
   pool: storage
     id: 8480938153972944186
  state: ONLINE
 action: The pool can be imported using its name or numeric identifier.
 config:

        storage                                   ONLINE
          raidz1-0                                ONLINE
            fba3806f-7873-11ec-bf85-f1d592473b68  ONLINE
            360d7542-5444-11ec-9bd0-772beffb53af  ONLINE
            362335c3-5444-11ec-9bd0-772beffb53af  ONLINE
root@truenas[~]# zpool import storage
cannot import 'storage': insufficient replicas
        Destroy and re-create the pool from
        a backup source.
root@truenas[~]# 

Tq for the help

 

[sretalla]

Currently i run Truenas in Proxmox.

How have you passed in the disks?

Did you pass the entire SATA controller/HBA? or did you use the individual disk "hack"?

 

[blur]

How have you passed in the disks?

Did you pass the entire SATA controller/HBA? or did you use the individual disk "hack"?

i passed the individual disk using qm command in proxmox

 

[sretalla]

I was hoping you were going to say that you had passed in the controller... passing in disks like you did is known to end how it has for you here.

Unfortunately, the caching that Proxmox is secretly doing in betweeen your disks and ZFS has caused something to not be written to the disks at some point, which has rendered your pool corrupt to a point where it can't mount.

If the data you put there is somehow valuable (and you don't have a backup of it), you may be able to work with Klennet to recover some or even all of the data, but that's commercial software and requires running Windows on a system with your pool disks connected to it.

Had you read this before setting up your system, maybe you would have done things differently:

"Absolutely must virtualize TrueNAS!" ... a guide to not completely losing your data.

[---- 2018/02/27: This is still as relevant as ever. As PCIe-Passthru has matured, fewer problems are reported. I've updated some specific things known to be problematic ----] [---- 2014/12/24: Note, there is another post discussing how to deploy a small FreeNAS VM instance for basic file...

www.truenas.com

 

[blur]

I was hoping you were going to say that you had passed in the controller... passing in disks like you did is known to end how it has for you here.

Unfortunately, the caching that Proxmox is secretly doing in betweeen your disks and ZFS has caused something to not be written to the disks at some point, which has rendered your pool corrupt to a point where it can't mount.

If the data you put there is somehow valuable (and you don't have a backup of it), you may be able to work with Klennet to recover some or even all of the data, but that's commercial software and requires running Windows on a system with your pool disks connected to it.

Had you read this before setting up your system, maybe you would have done things differently:

"Absolutely must virtualize TrueNAS!" ... a guide to not completely losing your data.

[---- 2018/02/27: This is still as relevant as ever. As PCIe-Passthru has matured, fewer problems are reported. I've updated some specific things known to be problematic ----] [---- 2014/12/24: Note, there is another post discussing how to deploy a small FreeNAS VM instance for basic file...

www.truenas.com

So basically my pool is broken right? Thanks for the help.
Quick question if now I build a new pool with the same method, in the future can I change the pool using HBA directly, or need to build a new one?

 

[sretalla]

So basically my pool is broken right?

Yes.

Quick question if now I build a new pool with the same method, in the future can I change the pool using HBA directly, or need to build a new one?

I haven't seen a lot of reports from testing that, but I guess it might work.

I wouldn't recommend it though as you're just as likely to lose your pool again while you're waiting.

 

[blur]

Yes.


I haven't seen a lot of reports from testing that, but I guess it might work.

I wouldn't recommend it though as you're just as likely to lose your pool again while you're waiting.

Thanks for the answer. since i will build a new pool using 4 disk it better to go for raidz2 or stick to raidz1?

 

[sretalla]

since i will build a new pool using 4 disk it better to go for raidz2 or stick to raidz1?

I have no idea what your use-case nor the size of the disks is, so can't recommend anything other than to say that RAIDZ1 is seen to be sufficient for bulk storage of media files on SSDs, but not for spinning disks over 2TB.

If you're using it as block storage, then mirrors are the only good performing option.

 

[blur]

I have no idea what your use-case nor the size of the disks is, so can't recommend anything other than to say that RAIDZ1 is seen to be sufficient for bulk storage of media files on SSDs, but not for spinning disks over 2TB.

If you're using it as block storage, then mirrors are the only good performing option.

Currently my use case for now is as old work data archive, plex media and bitcoin node. The HDD i will be use is 1TB because the data is not so big (for now).

 

[sretalla]

OK, so if your disks aren't over 2TB, the RAIDZ1 is sort-of still viable if you're prepared to replace failed disks quickly and understand the risk while there is one failed disk (no protection against new corruption and no protection against a further disk lost).

Your use-case seems well enough suited to RAIDZ as the workload will be mostly sequential reads/writes.