ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Topics
    2. scottalanmiller
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 170
    • Followers 168
    • Topics 3,474
    • Posts 151,814
    • Groups 1

    Posts

    Recent Best Controversial
    • RE: ZFS Pool Online but Cannot Import

      Some useful nuggets of info from this link..

      https://serverfault.com/questions/656073/zfs-pool-reports-a-missing-device-but-it-is-not-missing

      This bit from "Jim" in 2020 is super useful for background...


      I know this is a five year-old question, and your immediate problem was solved. But this is one of the few specific search results that come up in a web search about missing ZFS devices (at least the keywords I used), and it might help others to know this:

      This specific problem of devices going "missing", is a known problem with ZFS on Linux. (Specifically on Linux.) The problem, I believe, is two-fold, and although the ZOL team could themselves fix it (probably with a lot of work), it's not entirely a ZOL problem:

      • While no OS has a perfectly stable way of referring to devices, for this specific use case, Linux is a little worse than, say, Illumos, BSD, or Solaris. Sure, we have device IDs, GUIDs, and even better--the newer 'WWN' standard. But the problem is, some storage controllers--notably some USB (v3 and 4) controllers, eSATA, and others, as well as many types of consumer-grade external enclosures--either can't always see those, or worse, don't pass them through to the OS. Merely plugging a cable into the "wrong" port of an external enclosure can trigger this problem in ZFS, and there's no getting around it.

      • ZOL for some reason can't pick up that the disks do actually exist and are visible to the OS, just not at any of the previous locations ZFS knew before (e.g. /dev, /dev/disk/by-id, by-path, by-guid, etc.) Or the one specific previous location, more to the point. Even if you do a proper zpool export before moving anything around. This is particularly frustrating about ZOL or ZFS in particular. (I remember this problem even on Solaris, but granted that was a significantly older version of ZFS that would lose the entire pool if the ZIL went missing...which I lost everything once to [but had backups].)

      The obvious workaround is to not use consumer-grade hardware with ZFS, especially consumer-grade external enclosures that use some consumer-level protocol like USB, Firewire, eSATA, etc. (External SAS should be fine.)

      That specifically--consumer grade external enclosures--has caused me unending headaches. While I did occasionally have this specific problem with slightly more "enterprise"-grade LSI SAS controllers and rackmount chassis with a 5x4 bay, moving to a more portable solution with three external bays pretty much unleashed hell. Thankfully my array is a stripe of three-way mirrors, because at one point it literally lost track of 8 drives (out of 12 total), and the only solution was to resilver them. (Which was mostly reads at GBs/s so at least it didn't take days or weeks.)

      So I don't know what the long-term solution is. I wouldn't blame the volunteers working on this mountain of code, if they felt that covering all the edge cases of consumer-grade hardware, for Linux specifically, was out of scope.

      But I think that if ZFS did a more exhaustive search of metadata that ZFS manages itself on each disk, would fix many related problems. (Btrfs, for example, doesn't suffer from this problem at all. I can move stuff around willy-nilly completely at random, and it has never once complained. Granted, Btrfs has other shortcomings compared to ZFS (the list of pros and cons is endless), and it's also native Linux--but it at least goes to show that the problem can, in theory, be solved, at least on Linux, specifically by the software itself.

      I've cobbled together a workaround to this problem, and I've now implemented on all my ZFS arrays, even at work, even on enterprise hardware:

      • Turn the external enclosures off, so that ZFS doesn't automatically import the pool. (It is frustrating that there still seems to be no way to tell ZFS not to do this. Renaming the cachefile or setting it to "none" doesn't work. Even without the addressing problems, I almost never want the pools to auto-mount but would rather an automatic script do it.)

      • Once the system is up and settled down, then turn on the external enclosures.

      • Run a script that exports and imports the pool a few times in a row (frustratingly sometimes necessary for it to see even legit minor changes). The most important thing here, is to import in read-only mode to avoid an automatic resilver kicking off.

      • The script then shows the user the output of zpool status of the read-only pool, and prompt the user if it's OK to go ahead and import in full read-write mode.

      Doing this has saved me (or my data) countless times. Usually it means I have to move drives and/or usually just cables around, until the addressing gets back to where it was. It also provides me with the opportunity to try different addressing methods with the -d switch. Some combination of that, and changing cables/locations, has solved the problem a few times.

      In my particular case, mounting with -d /dev/disk/by-path is usually the optimal choice. Because my former favorite, -d /dev/disk/by-id is actually fairly unreliable with my current setup. Usually a whole bay of drives are simply missing entirely from the /dev/disk/by-id directory. (And in this case it's hard to blame even Linux. It's just a wonky setup that further aggravates the existing shortcomings previously noted.)

      Sure, it means the server can't be relied upon to come up automatically without manual intervention. But considering 1) it runs full-time on a big battery backup, 2) I've knowingly made that tradeoff for the benefit of being able to use consumer-grade hardware that doesn't require two people and a dolly to move... that's an OK tradeoff.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • ZFS Pool Online but Cannot Import

      We have a ZFS pool from a ProxMox server that died (not an install that we did.) There is no backup (not an environment we set up.) The drives didn't fail, they are clean and healthy. We moved the drives to another host and they show up fine. Everything registers fine. We do an import and we can see the pool to import but when we import it we get "one or more devices is currently unavailable", even though it clearly shows that they are available.

      There used to be more pools showing in this as well. Others have disappeared over time. Originally these all imported with only minor problems. But they've stopped importing. The device names have changed over time, too. But they are correct.

      root@pve1:/usr/local/mesh_services/meshagent# zpool import
         pool: rpool-pmx3
           id: 9234020319468906434
        state: ONLINE
      status: The pool was last accessed by another system.
       action: The pool can be imported using its name or numeric identifier and
              the '-f' flag.
         see: https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/msg/ZFS-8000-EY
       config:
      
              rpool-pmx3  ONLINE
                mirror-0  ONLINE
                  sdb3    ONLINE
                  sdc3    ONLINE
                mirror-1  ONLINE
                  sdd     ONLINE
                  sde     ONLINE
      root@pve1:/usr/local/mesh_services/meshagent# zpool import -f rpool-pmx3
      cannot import 'rpool-pmx3': one or more devices is currently unavailable
      
      posted in IT Discussion zfs truenas proxmox storage
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Sharepoint - Hybrid / Mixed solution?

      @JasGot said in Sharepoint - Hybrid / Mixed solution?:

      I'm open to even the wildest ideas.

      Is it only MS solutions for documents that they want, or are other options on the table too? Assuming so, but would be foolish not to check.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: What Are You Doing Right Now

      Working on a ZFS disaster.

      posted in Water Closet
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Not much luck with Linux Distro's

      @coliver said in Not much luck with Linux Distro's:

      @JaredBusch https://nobaraproject.org/. It's from the main developer behind Proton. I've been running it since it came out.

      You mean... Steam?

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      Something that I just had to say to someone in Montana dealing with this problem...

      They assumed no one was reporting the issue, since the state hadn't fixed it. But in reality, normal reports of the site being down wouldn't inform them of much. ANd when the hosting people check and the site is up, likely they'd ignore the reports.

      The problem with things like geo-IT blocking is that anyone that would use that as a tool thinking it had some value, would naturally have little chance of being able to understand when or why it wouldn't work. If they had the ability to troubleshoot it, they've have the knowledge that would have told them it was never okay to use in the first place.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      Awesome example happening right now.

      https://montanastatefund.com/

      For no good reason, this is geo-blocked. And in the worst way, without stating the issue but presenting the site as being offline. Works from some places in Montana. Works from some places in California. Blocked in Nicaragua or Bolivia where we casually tested.

      Now before someone makes an insane excuse that there is no reason for those places to use that site, keep in mind that the Montana companies IT team members are in those locations being asked to deal with an issue that involves that site not working. And keep in mind that people from Montana are, presumably, allowed to travel. So any suggestion that there is never a need to see a state government site outside of that state, or the US, is ridiculous and hopefully no one would ever suggest such a thing. Obviously government resources are some of the most important things to be available to US citizens and US businesses when using IPs that aren't listed as being in the US.

      So what is the actual problem? In blocking "other countries", that state accidentally blocked some ISPs in Montana, too. We know this because we have sites in Montana with dual ISPs. And on one ISP it just works, on another, it is blocked. Both are Montana IPs. But people on the one ISP don't get told that the resources is blocked, they don't get told what to do, they are simply shown that the resources is offline. That's a huge problem as normal people wouldn't even know to work around a broken geo IP block. Especially when they are in the same state.

      The risks to geo IP blocking are big. The benefits.. are simply lies. There are none.

      This is a great example where the technical reasons often listed for why you might want to geo-IP block can easily be shown to actually be reasons why you can't.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      @scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      There's never a technical reason. We've been discussing this for years. It's common IT knowledge that there is no technical reason to geo-IP block as it doesn't do what the name implies.

      It is almost always a technical reason, if ever a racially motivated one. Technical as in one or more of the reasons (not an exclusive list either) I listed in my first post.

      That's obviously false as there IS no technical reason to do so. Never once have I ever heard any plausible technical reason ever suggested. But tons of "just bad business" and sometimes illegal issues with blocking. Your list of potential reasons contained zero actual viable options. None of those were true or would meet the requirements. Saying "it's almost always technical" when no known technical reason even exists, is quite the stretch. Especially when, when confronted, zero examples of "it's technical" and always "we don't want to do business with 'those people'" have been given in real life.

      What is your basis for this statement? How could it possible be plausible? Your first post IS the perfect example. You couldn't come up with a single real world possible reason. We pointed out that none of those apply to any actual scenario that anyone could think of.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: What Are You Doing Right Now

      Man, I wish I was there 😞

      posted in Water Closet
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @Mario-Jakovina said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      I do not think we are "entitled" to access all sites by default - if someone do not want it's site to be accessible from Europe, I'm find with it.

      In the same vein, I don't think any human should be "entitled" to use someones race or proxy for race, like nationality, as a determining factor for anything. The idea that people who live in, or are willing to travel to, certain regions should be excluded goes down the path of... you can do anything you want. Where does that stop? Why is it okay to discriminate against someone for being "from" or "in" a place, but not being "of" a place? WHat's the difference? Hard lines is all.

      This is the very argument used by extreme racists to justify racists actions. It's a standard pattern. I know why it feels okay. But I think when you really look and say "oh wait, there is no honest, ethical reason to ever do this" it starts to make sense. In the INternet, where your IP is means nothing. Imagine if this was an in person shop and that you have a European passport means you are turned away and not allowed to shop. Or more specifically a Croatian one. Oh, you are a Croat? You can't shop here. You say "But I'm not a Croat, I just moved there and live there". Oh, well, too bad, we don't serve people who associate with Croats either.

      Does that not feel racist? Is it legal? Yes, in the US. Is it okay? Never. Why do we excuse it on the Internet when it would disgust us in person?

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @Mario-Jakovina said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      I think people are free to geoblock their sites if they think it is usefull for them and if they do not break any law etc.

      Yes, in SOME cases, people are free to discriminate, that's correct (in the US where racism is heavily supported by the government.) It's not ethical, but it's legal IF you aren't a publicly traded company or in any way a function of the government and need to be available to the public. Which isn't much in a country where nearly every industry is eventually backed by the government (the US is heavily leaning towards government ownership and planned economy compared to more capitalistic countries.)

      But that's not in question. Are people LEGALLY allowed to be racist? Yes. That's not the question.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @Mario-Jakovina said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      On the other hand, I do not find it "discriminatory" either.

      It's literally a mechanism to discriminate by the perceived ownership of an IP address by a group of people. It's as discriminatory as it gets.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      That'd make WAY more sense, and something I could even get on board with, providing there aren't any technical reasons that make much more sense such as those I listed initially.

      There's never a technical reason. We've been discussing this for years. It's common IT knowledge that there is no technical reason to geo-IP block as it doesn't do what the name implies.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      Or,

      "This website is blocking every country in the world except the U.S., and their phone support also said it's due to the owners of the service having a huge prejudice against all non-U.S. countries."

      So you are okay with saying it is racism, as long as we couch the verbage so to make it feel more palatable to sensitive people who are racist, and we say that they are racist, but we avoid the word to not hurt their feelings?

      When do we care about hurting the feelings of people being racist? That seems crazy.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @CCWTech said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      @Mario-Jakovina said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      @CCWTech said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      https://gephardtdaily.com/

      There is one example.

      It is geo blocked in my country.
      But I do not find it racist 🙂

      Should we call it unnecessarily discriminatory (Instead of racist?)

      No, I don't think so. Because fundamentally it is about race or the perception of race without any real alternative. When you see Americans as a race, as many Americans do, limiting anyone "except Americans" cannot be anything but racism. And no amount of "I don't see it that way" personally, changes the reality that that's how many Americans see being American (and mirrors how other countries are.) I don't think we should ever bow to the millenial "don't make people upset" mentality. Yes, I know it feels bad to admit that we are often surrounded by bad people, but we can't worry about acts of evil being ignored just because some scared American racist will be butt hurt over being called out. There's way too much "we can't make them feel bad" about this stuff in America. Man up America, put your big girl panties on and accept when you do bad things. Call it out. make it stop.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @CCWTech said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      @CCWTech said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      You are mistaking ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, and linguistic group with race.

      Which of those you use to identify with is your choice. But are all different things.

      So what race is someone who is mixed?

      They get to choose... How does that even work?

      Example?

      Someone who is white and black. They almost always choose black. Why? How do they even have a choice?

      They don't, when you "choose" you are choosing your ethnicity.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      You are mistaking ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, and linguistic group with race.

      Which of those you use to identify with is your choice. But are all different things.

      Yes, but I'm only using DNA.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      Jews could be anti-Arab
      

      That would be language / cultural discrimination or prejudice.

      You are mistaking ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, and linguistic group with race.

      Race is a categorization based on shared physical traits. (black, white, asian, indigenous)

      Exactly. Jew and Arab differ only on DNA, not on anything else. I think you are thinking of Judaism and Islam. Those are not traits of the DNA.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      @Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

      That would be religious / cultural (ethno-religious?) discrimination or prejudice.

      It's also a race. MANY Jews are not culturally or religiously homogenous.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • RE: Is it racist? I think it is.

      A great example of intra-racial racism is in common slurs. For example...

      In Quebec, to be someone stupid is to be a newfie. Newfie is a racial slur against the slightly different racial group from Newfoundland. But it's been a slur so long, many people don't realize that that is what they are saying.

      Or you might use the term vandal or vandalize. A racial slur against some Germans. But it is mostly used by other Germans. It's used by northern Germans as a slur against ones from the south. But as racial groups, they are separated by many thousands of years.

      posted in IT Discussion
      scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller
    • 1
    • 2
    • 12
    • 13
    • 14
    • 15
    • 16
    • 7590
    • 7591
    • 14 / 7591