Cannot mount one dataset to another

[AndruXO]

Do you have the capability to temporarily store the contents of vol2 somewhere else?

Yes I do. But unfortunately my vol1 is RAIDZ and vol2 is not RAIDZ (single disk in fact), so vol1 cannot be extended that way ((
The Wizard tells me: "You are trying to add a virtual device of type 'stripe' in a pool that has a virtual device of type 'raidz' "

Dear pirateghost, I see you don't want to give any help, and you don't want to admit a design of storing files that is new for you. Thank you anyway for your opinion.

And here I posted some strange behaviour of FreeNAS, that could be interesting for the community: about strange mounting to /mnt/mnt and strange sharing wizard which doesn't let share /mnt/mnt though it lets choose it.
It would be nice if we could investigate it.

 

[depasseg]

about strange mounting to /mnt/mnt and strange sharing wizard which doesn't let share /mnt/mnt though it lets choose it.

My guess is this has something to do with you working in the CLI.
To test my theory, you could detach that pool (your share, snapshot, replications would disappear, so have a backup), and then import it. When you import it, freenas scans the dataset and should create the proper mountpoints.

 

[pirateghost]

Yes I do. But unfortunately my vol1 is RAIDZ and vol2 is not RAIDZ (single disk in fact), so vol1 cannot be extended that way ((
The Wizard tells me: "You are trying to add a virtual device of type 'stripe' in a pool that has a virtual device of type 'raidz' "

Dear pirateghost, I see you don't want to give any help, and you don't want to admit a design of storing files that is new for you. Thank you anyway for your opinion.

And here I posted some strange behaviour of FreeNAS, that could be interesting for the community: about strange mounting to /mnt/mnt and strange sharing wizard which doesn't let share /mnt/mnt though it lets choose it.
It would be nice if we could investigate it.

You are trying to do something the system was NOT designed to do. This isn't strange behavior. It is an appliance. It is not intended to do what you trying to do.

Congratulations? You found a limitation of an appliance.

 

[AndruXO]

My guess is this has something to do with you working in the CLI

Having similar doubts, I've booted LiveCD of Nas4Free system, and created the same storage configuration and it worked like a charm. I managed to create the configuration I want.
I did it from the CLI, and the commands were the same... No problem.

You are trying to do something the system was NOT designed to do

Frankly speaking, you are right. The appliance has no functions to do what I want. But. As it is based on components (ZFS, Samba) that CAN do what I want, I was expectiong to have those functions via CLI.
And I was surprised that they are broken.

I wanted to move from Nas4Free to FreeNAS as I like it very much, but the final step which was gathering all datasets to one share broke all the process. :(

 

[pirateghost]

Having similar doubts, I've booted LiveCD of Nas4Free system, and created the same storage configuration and it worked like a charm. I managed to create the configuration I want.
I did it from the CLI, and the commands were the same... No problem.


Frankly speaking, you are right. The appliance has no functions to do what I want. But. As it is based on components (ZFS, Samba) that CAN do what I want, I was expectiong to have those functions via CLI.
And I was surprised that they are broken.

I wanted to move from Nas4Free to FreeNAS as I like it very much, but the final step which was gathering all datasets to one share broke all the process. :(

Get some new drives, fix your underlying issue of not having enough storage or a properly configured storage system.

OR

Just create multiple shares. You don't NEED the storage combined....

 

[AndruXO]

You don't NEED the storage combined

Why can't you just admit that I NEED it. Let me give you some pros of my solution.
1. On the client computer it's possible to map 1 network drive with all server data. The user sees it like a local resource (local drive) that he used to use.
2. It can be mapped using different credentials, which means one point of auth. I don't see any other suitable way to use a lot of shares regarding user access rights.
3. Mounting pools into existing structure means easy extending of the storage pool. I liked the suggestion of adding new vdev as stripe, but I'm not Enterprise.
Adding vdev means that if I had raid-z of 5 disks I must add next raid-z of 5 disks, I can't add 2 disks for example. That's frustrating.
I don't understand how to expand a storage in real life? How do you do it, not theoretically but in your real experience?

 

[pirateghost]

Why can't you just admit that I NEED it. Let me give you some pros of my solution.
1. On the client computer it's possible to map 1 network drive with all server data. The user sees it like a local resource (local drive) that he used to use.
2. It can be mapped using different credentials, which means one point of auth. I don't see any other suitable way to use a lot of shares regarding user access rights.
3. Mounting pools into existing structure means easy extending of the storage pool. I liked the suggestion of adding new vdev as stripe, but I'm not Enterprise.
Adding vdev means that if I had raid-z of 5 disks I must add next raid-z of 5 disks, I can't add 2 disks for example. That's frustrating.
I don't understand how to expand a storage in real life? How do you do it, not theoretically but in your real experience?

A single pool can handle all of that.

In REAL life, I started with 10 disks in a raidz2.
I added another 10 disk raidz2 to my pool. Boom. Extra storage....not difficult at all.

This software is not designed to do what you want. If you NEED that functionality, then you need to go to another solution.

 

[gpsguy]

If you added the single disk vdev to the pool (what you were trying to do via the GUI) and that single disk fails, then poof all your data is lost.

The webgui adds some seatbelts to prevent users from accidentally doing this. Older versions of FreeNAS didn't and we either saw data loss or users having to back up large amounts of data so the could rebuild their pool correctly.


Sent from my phone

 

[Mirfster]

I don't understand how to expand a storage in real life? How do you do it, not theoretically but in your real experience?

Can also replace each drive in an existing vdev with a larger one, re-silver.. Wash and repeat until all drives have been replaced (with larger ones) and then "automagically" you have more space.

If you added the single disk vdev to the pool (what you were trying to do via the GUI) and that single disk fails, then poof all your data is lost.

This man speaketh the truth... Heed these words all those who would dareth venture down this dark path...

 

[jde]

The Wizard tells me: "You are trying to add a virtual device of type 'stripe' in a pool that has a virtual device of type 'raidz' "

This may be a safety feature that was added to freenas. If you search through the forums, there are multiple instances of users accidentally, and irreversibly striping in a single disk vdev and destroying their pool's redundancy. So, maybe the developers have tried to save users from themselves.

I'm guessing you don't have to have a vdev of the exact size and type as already exists on the system in order to stripe it in... just something more than a single disk. If you really want to stripe in a single disk vdev and destroy your pool's redundancy, you can probably do it through CLI.

You may know it, and probably don't want to hear it, but it sounds like your setup has a lot of problems that may result in data loss. First, you have a single disk vdev in vol2 which provides no redundancy. Second you have a raidz1 pool with what appear to be >= 2 TB drives. Both vol1 & vol2 are at a relatively high risk of data loss. Search the forum for raidz1 and URE for explanation as to why raidz1 is not recommended for >= 1 TB drives. The parts of your setup that we know about make me curious as to whether your other hardware is up to the minimum specs for freenas.

Get some new drives, fix your underlying issue of not having enough storage or a properly configured storage system.

Whether or not you think pirateghost is being diplomatic, I would recommend you take his advice to heart. In general, the point of using freenas and/ZFS is to protect your data. In my view the potential data loss issues dwarf the issue of whether client machines have to map 2 shares. If data protection is not your primary concern, that's OK. But if that's the case, perhaps freenas is not right tool for the job.

 

[AndruXO]

not difficult at all

Wow. So next "boom" will be adding next 20 disks (you'll have to extend your current 20 disks with mirror or stripe)? Is it still not difficult? Do you have enough slots?

If you added the single disk vdev to the pool (what you were trying to do via the GUI) and that single disk fails, then poof all your data is lost.

Yes, but that's my special case. It's my torrents disk, I can loose it and I understand it. But it could be mirror or any fault-tolerant z-array. In my case I would lose just 1 folder.

 

[pirateghost]

Wow. So next "boom" will be adding next 20 disks (you'll have to extend your current 20 disks with mirror or stripe)? Is it still not difficult? Do you have enough slots?


Yes, but that's my special case. It's my torrents disk, I can loose it and I understand it. But it could be mirror or any fault-tolerant z-array. In my case I would lose just 1 folder.

No. Next step is adding another 10 disk raidz2 or swapping out my 3tb disks for 6tb disks.

 

[cyberjock]

I just want to echo what pirateghost said. While it isn't the most ideal plan for you, the best way to deal with this is really to fix the underlying storage situation rather than trying to work around it. It sounds like you consider having a single share as a need. To fulfill that need you also need to consider having the storage properly planned out.

Yes, what he said may not have been the answer that you wanted to hear, but it is much safer than what you are currently trying to do. If you were my friend and had a need for a single share, I'd tell them to redesign their system to support a single zpool.

As for your ZFS questions, I'd recommend you read my noobie presentation on FreeNAS as it explains very well the limitations and options for expanding a zpool after it has been created... along with pitfalls that people have fallen into in the past.

 

[AndruXO]

This may be a safety feature that was added to freenas

Nope... In such a case it wouldn't let create stripes (like raid-0) at all... I guess it's by design of zfs (see the link below)

I'm guessing you don't have to have a vdev of the exact size and type as already exists

I guess you have...
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/6n7ht6qvk/index.html
But I will be glad if I'm wrong and someone gives me a proof.

The parts of your setup that we know about make me curious as to whether your other hardware is up to the minimum specs for freenas.

SuperMicro X10SL7-F
Intel Xeon 1240 v3
32GB (4 x 8Gb) DDR3 1333MHz Kingston ECC
6 x 2Tb storage, 1 x 1Tb storage, 500Gb boot
Chieftec case with 7 3.5'' drive bays

No. Next step is adding another 10 disk raidz2 or swapping out my 3tb disks for 6tb disks.

Okay, great! But are yousure that your pool can handle 3Tb disks raidz2 + 6Tb disks raidz2? Do you have a success story for that?

 

[pirateghost]

Works just fine. The vdev expands as soon as the last disk is replaced.

 

[Mirfster]

Works just fine. The vdev expands as soon as the last disk is replaced.

Aww... was so wanting you to use "automagically"....

 

[gpsguy]

Are you calling all 7 disks, your "torrents disk". If it's only the single disk - what I told you earlier is that should that disk fail, you will lose ALL your data on the 7 disks.

While one can create a pool using the CLI, 99% of the forum users who go that route end up doing it wrong.

If you followed some random Oracle documentation you probably used a whole disk instead of partitioning it, as FreeNAS expects it to be done. And, you probably didn't use gptid's.

Please post the output of zpool status in code tags to show us your pool layout.

Yes, but that's my special case. It's my torrents disk, I can loose it and I understand it. But it could be mirror or any fault-tolerant z-array. In my case I would lose just 1 folder.

Sent from my phone

 

[depasseg]

I don't know where the leading /mnt comes from (my guess is the main pool is mounted at /mnt), and I really don't care what happens down the road, but if you change your mountpoint (remove the /mnt from your command), it looks like it will work.

Code:

[root@testnas1] ~# zfs list
TestDestination/movethis                                       96K  2.56G    96K  /mnt/TestDestination/movethis
[root@testnas1] ~# zfs set mountpoint=/mnt/TestSource/A/moved TestDestination/movethis
[root@testnas1] ~# zfs list
NAME                                                          USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
TestDestination                                              3.22G  2.56G   104K  /mnt/TestDestination
TestDestination/movethis                                       96K  2.56G    96K  /mnt/mnt/TestSource/A/moved
TestSource                                                   2.81G  2.97G   104K  /mnt/TestSource
TestSource/A                                                  160K  2.97G    96K  /mnt/TestSource/A
TestSource/B                                                   96K  2.97G    96K  /mnt/TestSource/B
TestSource/C                                                   96K  2.97G    96K  /mnt/TestSource/C
[root@testnas1] ~# zfs set mountpoint=/TestSource/A/moved TestDestination/movethis
[root@testnas1] ~# zfs list
NAME                                                          USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
TestDestination                                              3.22G  2.56G   104K  /mnt/TestDestination
TestDestination/movethis                                       96K  2.56G    96K  /mnt/TestSource/A/moved
TestSource                                                   2.81G  2.97G   104K  /mnt/TestSource
TestSource/A                                                  160K  2.97G    96K  /mnt/TestSource/A
TestSource/B                                                   96K  2.97G    96K  /mnt/TestSource/B
TestSource/C                                                   96K  2.97G    96K  /mnt/TestSource/C
[root@testnas1] ~# 

 

[AndruXO]

Please post the output of zpool status in code tags to show us your pool layout.

Here it is:

Code:

$ zpool status
  pool: pool1
state: ONLINE
  scan: none requested
config:

    NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
    pool1       ONLINE       0     0     0
      raidz1-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
        da0     ONLINE       0     0     0
        da1     ONLINE       0     0     0
        da2     ONLINE       0     0     0
        da3     ONLINE       0     0     0
        da4     ONLINE       0     0     0
        da5     ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

  pool: pool2
state: ONLINE
  scan: none requested
config:

    NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
    pool2       ONLINE       0     0     0
      da6       ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

pool2 is my trash-torrent 1Tb disk
Now here is the ZFS structure from my Nas4Free system (I want that on FreeNAS, but I can't reach it):

Code:

$ zfs list
NAME                   USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
pool1                 2.04G  8.41T   153K  /mnt/pool1
pool1/ALL_ROOT        2.04G  8.41T   153K  /mnt/pool1/ALL_ROOT
pool1/ALL_ROOT/Music  2.04G  8.41T  2.04G  /mnt/pool1/ALL_ROOT/Music
pool2                  420K   899G    96K  /mnt/pool2
pool2/Downloads         96K   899G    96K  /mnt/pool1/ALL_ROOT/Downloads

As you can see I mounted pool2/Downloads to the pool1, and it's not the same when I join a vdev to the pool.
Here I have a flexibility and can unmount/loose pool2 and not loose any data on pool1.

 

[jde]

I guess you have...
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/6n7ht6qvk/index.html
But I will be glad if I'm wrong and someone gives me a proof.

This fellow had a single disk vdev in his pool striped with a raidz2 vdev. https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/raidz2-degraded-unable-to-restore-pool.40837/
In particular, look at the ZBD output in his original post. His pool is now unmountable because he lost the single disk vdev. Clearly it's possible to have non-symmetric vdevs striped in a pool. Proof enough?

The Oracle doc you cite to gives examples of how vdevs can be added, and the examples all use symmetric vdevs, but I don't see anything saying that is the only valid configuration.

Other than the pool issues described above, your build looks fine.