SOLVED Insufficient replications?

[stevecyb]

I'm trying to get my Mini XL+ to replicate my stuff to a USB drive.

First I tried to create the pool on the USB drive on a Linux box, because the ZFS utility there seems to have fewer features (whatever that means) than the NAS. I did this after reading a few things Arwen wrote on a thread, long ago. (A couple of weeks ago, I had successfully created a pool on a USB drive on the NAS, then was able to mount it on the Linux system but it complained about something or other and I attributed it to the ZFS utility being behind on features.)

Anyhow, going in that direction, the USB drive was totally unreadable by the NAS; the NAS wouldn't import it or even acknowledge there was a pool on it.

So I used the NAS to create the drive. I then did a replication TO the USB drive, and it seems to have completed successfully. Looking at replication tasks in the GUI, everything is shown as up-to-date.

One thing that struck me as odd, however, is that the icon in the top bar that indicates a replication is in progress is still wagging side-to-side...though I can't find such a task running.

Anyhow, I exported/disconnected the USB drive, took it over to the Linux box to try to mount it...and ZFS there refuses to mount it on the grounds that there are insufficient replications.

I can't find anything here about this error. So, what's going on?

1) What might I have done wrong creating the pool on my Linux box?

2) (More importantly) how did I mess up the replication? Why is that darn icon indicating a replication is in progress even though all the replication tasks in the table look to have completed?

 

[stevecyb]

FUrther developments:

Destroyed the pool on the USB drive.

Recreated it on Linux.

The NAS again could not see that pool at all.

Created a pool on the USB drive in the NAS.

Replicated to it.

Exported it, plugged it into the linux box.

Linux ZFS has no idea the disk is there though it shows up as zfs on gparted. (Zpool status returns "no pools available.")

This is EXACTLY what I wished to avoid. I now have backups that only the originating system can read. What happens if I lose that system?

 

[garm]

What does zpool import say?

 

[stevecyb]

When trying to import the Linux/ZFS-created drive onto the NAS via the GUI, it doesn't show up in the dropdown that you use to name the pool you want to import.

On the other end (trying to import the pool created on the NAS onto my Linux box)...I'll have to get back to you with the exact message, but zpool status said there were no pools, and import wouldn't import the pool even if I named it on the command line.

This evening I'll be back in front of the machine and can tell you. In the mean time, thanks for your response!

 

[stevecyb]

What does zpool import say?

Well I'll be dipped.

zpool status apparently only shows you mounted pools. I was relying on it to show me more than that.

zpool import listed the disk properly. I then had to issue "zpool import temp1" (the name of the pool), at which point it showed up as /temp1 on my linux system (I believe the mount point is changeable via command line parameter). All the files I had copied onto it are there too.

So this is partially solved. I say partially, because sudo zpool import also spat out the following:

status: Some supported features are not enabled on the pool.
action: The pool can be imported using its name or numeric identifier, though
some features will not be available without an explicit 'zpool upgrade'.

I don't know what these features are that the pool is missing, but it's a backup and all I need to be able to do is read the files!

It would be nice if I could figure out why pools created on the linux box are unreadable by the NAS...but reading carefully I may have a clue. If I read it right, the linux ZFS is more current than the NAS's ZFS. (I had originally thought it was the other way around.) That may be enough to flummox my Mini XL+?

Anyhow, you asked me a simple question...and it was enough!! Thank You!!!

 

[garm]

zpool status won’t show you a pool that haven’t been imported. You need to ensure that the pool has a feature set that is supported by both systems and that the naming of the drive is consistent. Using a USB emulator for the drive is far from ideal as you won’t have access to the sata bus. In general when dealing with ZFS try to stick to as few middlemen as possible

 

[garm]

It would be nice if I could figure out why pools created on the linux box are unreadable by the NAS

Because it will use feature not available in OpenZFS. Linux uses ZFSonLinux and is a different code base. FreeBSD is being moved over to using the same branch but it’s gonna take a bit longer to get there. But even so, the version deployed by FreeNAS will probably always lag behind bleeding edge.

 

[stevecyb]

Because it will use feature not available in OpenZFS. Linux uses ZFSonLinux and is a different code base. FreeBSD is being moved over to using the same branch but it’s gonna take a bit longer to get there. But even so, the version deployed by FreeNAS will probably always lag behind bleeding edge.

I realize incompatibilities could cause issues...but the NAS is actually behaving as if the disk has nothing on it at all! That was a bit unexpected (and confusing, at first).

It doesn't really matter, in the end. The pool is created, both systems can read it, life is good. And upgrades to either system shouldn't cause any changes to the readability of an old pool (if I understand properly).

In any case I'm now at work and my first off-site backup is sitting in the desk drawer behind me. The second (of the three I will rotate) is being started as we speak; I'll keep that one there until I've made significant changes to my data.

On further consideration, I think we can mark this as SOLVED in full. I've seen that green label on posts, but I have no idea how to do that.

 

[garm]

Edit your initial post, there is a prefix field next to the headline