ZFS device(s) not listed in devices dropdown

    • Teeminus wrote:

      When I try to edit an existing shared folder, I get the following error message:

      Source Code

      1. "Failed to execute XPath query '//system/fstab/mntent[uuid='3f8ede54-1dc4-47be-ab28-eedd97a3ab6d']'."
      2. Error #0:
      3. OMV\Config\DatabaseException: Failed to execute XPath query '//system/fstab/mntent[uuid='3f8ede54-1dc4-47be-ab28-eedd97a3ab6d']'. in /usr/share/php/openmediavault/config/database.inc:78
      4. Stack trace:
      5. #0 /usr/share/openmediavault/engined/rpc/sharemgmt.inc(231): OMV\Config\Database->get('conf.system.fil...', '3f8ede54-1dc4-4...')
      6. #1 [internal function]: OMVRpcServiceShareMgmt->get(Array, Array)
      7. #2 /usr/share/php/openmediavault/rpc/serviceabstract.inc(123): call_user_func_array(Array, Array)
      8. #3 /usr/share/php/openmediavault/rpc/rpc.inc(86): OMV\Rpc\ServiceAbstract->callMethod('get', Array, Array)
      9. #4 /usr/sbin/omv-engined(536): OMV\Rpc\Rpc::call('ShareMgmt', 'get', Array, Array, 1)
      10. #5 {main}
      Display All

      After upgrading my kernel to version 4.16 and zfs to version 0.7.9-3 tonight, today I also saw the issue @Teeminus described here. Didn't look in the section "Acces Rights Management - Shared Folders" in the omv webui tonight. So I didn't recognize the issue. I had some problems while updating my system to latest backport kernel and latest zfs tonight. I described the solution here:

      Is ZFS supported in Kernel 4.13-4.15?

      Today it was not possible to export my pool anymore, I always got the following message:

      Source Code

      1. zpool export mediatank
      2. cannot export 'mediatank': pool is busy


      It was also not possible for me to identify which service keeps the pool busy. So, after some friggeling I did the following procedure:
      • shutdown the server
      • removed the sas/sata cables of my zfs disks
      • started the server again
      • rmmod zfs to unload the zfs modules
      • rm -R /mediatank/ to remove the mountpoints of my pool
      • modprobe -a zfs to load the zfs modules
      • shutdown the server
      • attached the sas/sata cables of my zfs disks
      • started the server again
      • my pool got imported automatically
      • accessed the sections "Storage - File Systems" and "Storage - ZFS" in the omv webui, looks as expected and seems to work
      • accessed the section "Acces Rights Management - Shared Folders" in the omv webui, got the yellow line message in the omv webui, that notices about changes and I accepted them


      After this procedure I saw my zfs file systems under "Device" back again. I also see my zfs file systems in the dropdown list, if I edit one of my shared folders. If I remember right, before executing the above described procedure, I only saw "NA" or something like this in the "Device" section of the following table:




      Did some reboots, a "shutdown -h now", a restart and again some reboots. I think it works now. No issues at the moment. We will see... Maybe this procedure helps somebody else.

      EDIT: I think the key is last point of the procedure, the yellow line message, where omv recognized that something has changed and I accepted these changes. By the way... I am not really sure, if the message appeared at this point, or directly when I accessed the omv webui, or at some point between logging into omv webui and accessing the section "Acces Rights Management - Shared Folders".

      Regards Hoppel
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      frontend software - tvos | android tv | libreelec | win10 | kodi krypton
      frontend hardware - appletv 4k | nvidia shield tv | odroid c2 | yamaha rx-a1020 | quadral chromium style 5.1 | samsung le40-a789r2
      -------------------------------------------
      backend software - debian | openmediavault | latest backport kernel | zfs raid-z2 | docker | emby | unifi | vdr | tvheadend | fhem
      backend hardware - supermicro x11ssh-ctf | xeon E3-1240L-v5 | 64gb ecc | 8x10tb wd red | digital devices max s8
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The post was edited 3 times, last by hoppel118 ().

    • ellnic wrote:

      MasterChillerX wrote:

      So the ZFS Plugin was updatet today and erverything works fine with a fresh installed and updatet omv 4.1.7 with 4.16.0.bpo.1. Massive thanks to subzero79 and ryecoaaron for updating the plugin and helping a novice like me :thumbsup:
      Nice. :D
      I have just updated the plugin here too, and can confirm that I now see ZFS pools in the dropdown. Go to the ZFS tab first and accept the config changes, then to the shared folders - and they are there! Nice work @ryecoaaron and @subzero79 <3

      @Blabla Your fix is here :)

      1. Enable OMV-Extras Testing in OMV Extras tab
      2. apt update
      3. apt upgrade - during upgrade select 'N' to any config file changes (to keep yours)
      4. Visit ZFS tab and accept changes (yellow banner)

      You may need to export pools, then import here. You probably won't get a save config changes prompt if you need to (I am guessing).

      5. Disable OMV-Extras testing if desired.

      6. Go enjoy your pools in the dropdown :)
      Great! The dropdown is working but as you said :D
      Only problem, I still see the folder empty so I tried to export and import it but I gained this error:

      Source Code

      1. root@delibird:~# zpool export Telefilm
      2. cannot export 'Telefilm': pool is busy
      3. root@delibird:~# lsof | grep zfs
      4. root@delibird:~# lsof | grep zfs
      5. zed 1775 root mem REG 8,65 18272 527399 /lib/libzfs_core.so.1.0.0
      6. zed 1775 root mem REG 8,65 301392 527158 /lib/libzfs.so.2.0.0
      7. zed 1775 root 5u CHR 10,58 0t0 12861 /dev/zfs
      8. zed 1775 root 7u CHR 10,58 0t0 12861 /dev/zfs
      9. zed 1775 root 8u CHR 10,58 0t0 12861 /dev/zfs
      10. zed 1775 1865 root mem REG 8,65 18272 527399 /lib/libzfs_core.so.1.0.0
      11. zed 1775 1865 root mem REG 8,65 301392 527158 /lib/libzfs.so.2.0.0
      12. zed 1775 1865 root 5u CHR 10,58 0t0 12861 /dev/zfs
      13. zed 1775 1865 root 7u CHR 10,58 0t0 12861 /dev/zfs
      14. zed 1775 1865 root 8u CHR 10,58 0t0 12861 /dev/zfs
      15. zed 1775 1867 root mem REG 8,65 18272 527399 /lib/libzfs_core.so.1.0.0
      16. zed 1775 1867 root mem REG 8,65 301392 527158 /lib/libzfs.so.2.0.0
      17. zed 1775 1867 root 5u CHR 10,58 0t0 12861 /dev/zfs
      18. zed 1775 1867 root 7u CHR 10,58 0t0 12861 /dev/zfs
      19. zed 1775 1867 root 8u CHR 10,58 0t0 12861 /dev/zfs
      Display All
      how can I solve this? I don't get what is locking my pool :(
      Intel G4400 - Asrock H170M Pro4S - 8GB ram - 2x4TB WD RED in RAID1 - ZFS Mirror 2x6TB Seagate Ironwolf
      OMV 4.1.4 - Kernel 4.14 backport 3 - omvextrasorg 4.1.2
    • @Blabla Read my post directly before your post. I had the same problem. I couldn‘t find another solution than that, but it works. If you use your nas for business purposes, it may not be a solution to do that, because you have to shutdown the server twice. But I am not a developer, maybe there is something that can be rewritten/changed at the plugin or maybe there is something else that can be done... ;)

      By the way, I didn’t recognize that the main issue of this thread was solved with the new omv-zfs plugin version 4.0.3. :)

      Regards Hoppel
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      frontend software - tvos | android tv | libreelec | win10 | kodi krypton
      frontend hardware - appletv 4k | nvidia shield tv | odroid c2 | yamaha rx-a1020 | quadral chromium style 5.1 | samsung le40-a789r2
      -------------------------------------------
      backend software - debian | openmediavault | latest backport kernel | zfs raid-z2 | docker | emby | unifi | vdr | tvheadend | fhem
      backend hardware - supermicro x11ssh-ctf | xeon E3-1240L-v5 | 64gb ecc | 8x10tb wd red | digital devices max s8
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The post was edited 1 time, last by hoppel118 ().

    • hoppel118 wrote:

      @Blabla Read my post directly before your post. I had the same problem. I couldn‘t find another solution than that, but it works. If you use your nas for business purposes, it may not be a solution to do that, because you have to shutdown the server twice. But I am not a developer, maybe there is something that can be rewritten/changed at the plugin or maybe there is something else that can be done... ;)

      By the way, I didn’t recognize that the main issue of this thread was solved with the new omv-zfs plugin version 4.0.3. :)
      Regards Hoppel
      Thanks! it's not a big deal since I use it at home. If there will be a better solution for this weekend I will follow it, otherwise I'll go with you solution :)
      Intel G4400 - Asrock H170M Pro4S - 8GB ram - 2x4TB WD RED in RAID1 - ZFS Mirror 2x6TB Seagate Ironwolf
      OMV 4.1.4 - Kernel 4.14 backport 3 - omvextrasorg 4.1.2
    • OMV 4 with the 4.0.4 zfs plugin and the proxmox kernel (no compiling needed, remove debian kernels too) seem very good on my test VM but I don't use it for important things. The version of omv-extras really doesn't matter as long as it has the proxmox kernel install button.
      omv 4.1.13 arrakis | 64 bit | 4.15 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 4.1.13
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github

      Please read this before posting a question and this and this for docker questions.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • ryecoaaron wrote:

      OMV 4 with the 4.0.4 zfs plugin and the proxmox kernel (no compiling needed, remove debian kernels too) seem very good on my test VM but I don't use it for important things.
      I've noticed you seem to really like the proxmox kernel. Briefly, what are some of advantages of using the proxmox kernel versus using the backports kernel?
      Good backup takes the "drama" out of computing
      ____________________________________
      Primary: OMV 3.0.99, ThinkServer TS140, 12GB ECC, 32GB USB boot, 4TB+4TB zmirror, 3TB client backup.
      Backup: OMV 4.1.9, Acer RC-111, 4GB, 32GB USB boot, 3TB+3TB zmirror, 4TB Rsync'ed disk
      2nd Data Backup: OMV 3.0.99, R-PI 2B, 16GB boot, 4TB WD USB MyPassport - direct connect (no hub)
    • flmaxey wrote:

      Briefly, what are some of advantages of using the proxmox kernel versus using the backports kernel?
      The proxmox kernel is the Ubuntu 18 kernel (well tested and I am a fan of Ubuntu). It has zfs builtin and it is well tested against the stretch userland (since that is what proxmox uses). Plus, there is a repo for it which makes it easy to add to OMV.
      omv 4.1.13 arrakis | 64 bit | 4.15 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 4.1.13
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github

      Please read this before posting a question and this and this for docker questions.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • ryecoaaron wrote:

      The proxmox kernel is the Ubuntu 18 kernel (well tested and I am a fan of Ubuntu). It has zfs builtin and it is well tested against the stretch userland (since that is what proxmox uses). Plus, there is a repo for it which makes it easy to add to OMV.
      Please pardon me for extending this - but just one more question.

      If using the proxmox kernel with OMV4 (VIA OMV-extras):
      Based on the above, I'll take it that the kernel headers for ZFS are already installed. Will OMV's ZFS plugin install and work properly?
      Good backup takes the "drama" out of computing
      ____________________________________
      Primary: OMV 3.0.99, ThinkServer TS140, 12GB ECC, 32GB USB boot, 4TB+4TB zmirror, 3TB client backup.
      Backup: OMV 4.1.9, Acer RC-111, 4GB, 32GB USB boot, 3TB+3TB zmirror, 4TB Rsync'ed disk
      2nd Data Backup: OMV 3.0.99, R-PI 2B, 16GB boot, 4TB WD USB MyPassport - direct connect (no hub)
    • flmaxey wrote:

      Based on the above, I'll take it that the kernel headers for ZFS are already installed. Will OMV's ZFS plugin install and work properly?
      Yep, as long as you are using the latest zfs plugin. I made this change to make it work: github.com/OpenMediaVault-Plug…e0268bcea321239ddbed47R19
      omv 4.1.13 arrakis | 64 bit | 4.15 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 4.1.13
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github

      Please read this before posting a question and this and this for docker questions.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • What I'd like to know is how they are managing to get away with that... I thought the Ubuntu installations just matched the Kernel with the ZFS files in the main repo... ergo, it 'comes' with ZFS after a single apt. They always make sure everything matches etc - so a simple install procedure. But what this seems to suggest with the Proxmox kernel is that ZFS is being bundled with a GPLv2 project... or am I mistaken? Kudos to them if it is.... I'm starting to think the reason Oracle aren't changing the license is because they don't have permission of all coders - but they don't actually care. They won't do it, because that would be seen as a really bad example, but they couldn't care less (or even applaud?) those who do? Who knows.... why haven't they taken legal action if there are these 'breaches'?

      Oh and while we are on the subject of dear old Oracle.... I'm gonna make some enemies here... Oracle Linux is better than Centos. Yep.. I said it. I have changed my opinion. Why? Upstream delay is a LOT less and they use an Ubuntu style 'pay if you want'. I'd normally steer clear of anything Oracle, but if you want RPM that's binary compatible to Redhat (but not) then OEL wins. *runs and hides*

      Edit: This is not to say that I think Red Hat (and derivatives) are better than Debian (and derivatives). Just that if I were forced to use a Red Hat distro with a zero budget that it wouldn't be Centos.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by ellnic ().

    • ellnic wrote:

      ut what this seems to suggest with the Proxmox kernel is that ZFS is being bundled with a GPLv2 project... or am I mistaken?
      The zfs kernel module is included in the kernel package. My understanding from reading Canonical postings is that this is legal since it is not compiled into the kernel itself. I think including the package without downloading it is the gray area but Canonical's lawyers must think it is ok.

      ellnic wrote:

      Oracle Linux is better than Centos.
      Doesn't bother me at all :)

      ellnic wrote:

      This is not to say that I think Red Hat (and derivatives) are better than Debian (and derivatives). Just that if I were forced to use a Red Hat distro with a zero budget that it wouldn't be Centos.
      I am forced to use RHEL and CentOS (and a few installs of Oracle as well). Their support is terrible even if you pay for it. Canonical's is quite good. I would love to never use an rpm-based distro again :D
      omv 4.1.13 arrakis | 64 bit | 4.15 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 4.1.13
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github

      Please read this before posting a question and this and this for docker questions.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • ellnic wrote:

      Oracle support was so bad
      Never used Oracle's support. I was referring to RedHat.

      ellnic wrote:

      I wish more distros would follow suit. If Canonical are doing it, the smaller outfits should follow.
      That would be nice. I get that using dkms is probably safer but it causes quite a few issues due to the need to compile.
      omv 4.1.13 arrakis | 64 bit | 4.15 proxmox kernel | omvextrasorg 4.1.13
      omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github

      Please read this before posting a question and this and this for docker questions.
      Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!
    • Really? I misread that because I think I wanted to assume you were talking about Oracle.. I thought the almighty Red Hat would win on this... after all, the support they sell is basically their business. You’d think they’d want to shine above the likes of Oracle. If review sites are anything to be believed, they seem to put Oracle in favourable light.