Risk in mirroring

Hi
What are all the benefits and risk associated with mirroring in oracle data migration from 9i to 10g in aix to linux?
Thanks
Raj

Please read documentation for mirroring :)
Here you go
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:4433784236146
Cheers!!!
Bhushan
Edited by: Buga on Oct 30, 2009 5:34 PM

Similar Messages

  • Can I create a mirrored RAID1 from an existing striped RAID0 without erasing the data?

    I have a 1.5 TB striped RAID0 with 3 500 GB drives. I have a clone of the data from the 1.5TB RAID on a non-RAID 1TB drive and a 500GB drive. I'd like to create a RAID1 mirrored set out of all of these disks. I can partition the 1TB into 2 500GB drives and combine that with the other 500 GB. I'd rather not erase the data to create the mirror. Is there a way to rebuild a mirrored set from the existing 1.5 TB striped set, or do I need to start all over? I have a third copy of the data that I could put on the new mirrored RAID if necessary.
    The data is aperture, itunes and imovie libraries. To back up a minute, is having a RAID1 a good option or is there a better solution that I am not considering?
    PS I'm using a 2.53 GHz macbook pro unibody with 8GB of RAM.

    First off a mirrored RAID requires two drives of equal size (could be two striped RAIDs of equal size.) So, as I understand what you have to work with you can create a single 500 GB mirrored RAID using two of the 500 GB drives.
    You could create a striped RAID array using two of the 500 GB drives, then combine it with the 1 TB drive you have to create a 1 TB mirrored RAID. But this would not be the best alternative because if one of the smaller drives in the striped array fails then you lose everything on those drives. Not so bad as long as the single 1 TB drive is OK.
    Also, you might find this information helpful:
    RAID Basics
    For basic definitions and discussion of what a RAID is and the different types of RAIDs see RAIDs.  Additional discussions plus advantages and disadvantages of RAIDs and different RAID arrays see:
    RAID Tutorial;
    RAID Array and Server:
    Hardware and Service Comparison.
    Hardware or Software RAID?
    RAID Hardware Vs RAID Software - What is your best option?
    RAID is a method of combining multiple disk drives into a single entity in order to improve the overall performance and reliability of your system. The different options for combining the disks are referred to as RAID levels. There are several different levels of RAID available depending on the needs of your system. One of the options available to you is whether you should use a Hardware RAID solution or a Software RAID solution.
    RAID Hardware is always a disk controller to which you can cable up the disk drives. RAID Software is a set of kernel modules coupled together with management utilities that implement RAID in Software and require no additional hardware.
    Pros and cons
    Software RAID is more flexible than Hardware RAID. Software RAID is also considerably less expensive. On the other hand, a Software RAID system requires more CPU cycles and power to run well than a comparable Hardware RAID System. Also, because Software RAID operates on a partition by partition basis where a number of individual disk partitions are grouped together as opposed to Hardware RAID systems which generally group together entire disk drives, Software RAID tends be slightly more complicated to run. This is because it has more available configurations and options. An added benefit to the slightly more expensive Hardware RAID solution is that many Hardware RAID systems incorporate features that are specialized for optimizing the performance of your system.
    For more detailed information on the differences between Software RAID and Hardware RAID you may want to read: Hardware RAID vs. Software RAID: Which Implementation is Best for my Application?
    Do You Really Need a RAID?
    There is only one thing a RAID  provides - more space.  Beyond that a RAID can’t help you with:
    Accidental deletion or user error
    Viruses or malware
    Theft or catastrophic damage
    Data corruption due to other failed hardware or power loss
    Striped RAIDs have a higher failure risk than a single drive
    The purpose of a RAID is to provide high speed mass storage for specialized needs like video editing, working with extremely large files, and storing huge amounts of data.
    If your array fails it means complete loss of data and hours of time to rebuild.  RAIDs degrade over time necessitating many hours of restoration.  And, if you don't know much about RAIDs then you really don't need one.
    You can use a RAID for backup.  But unless your backup needs involve TBs of data requiring rapid and frequent access, why bother?  TM works in the background.  It's not like you have to sit there waiting for your backup to be completed.  Furthermore, you're buying two drives possibly to solve a problem where a single drive will do.  And, one drive is less expensive than two.
    Ignoring overhead, two drives in a RAID 0 (striped) array should perform about twice as fast. However, as the array fills up with files that performance will degrade.
    RAID was a technology that in it's time was meant to solve a problem.  Large capacity, fast drives were extremely expensive.  Small drives were cheaper but slower.  However, combining these cheaper drives into arrays gave faster performance and the larger capacity needed for data storage needs.  Thus, the reason why it's called Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drives.  But today you can buy a 3 TB drive with performance that's better than the 1 TB drives of two or three years ago.

  • Creating a mirrored raid set with a hard drive that already has data on it.

    I have a hard drive that I keep my photos on, and want to create a mirrored raid set that includes this drive, with its data, and another drive.  How can I do this without erasing the drive with my photos on them?  I am running 10.7.5 if that matters.
    Thanks for any help.

    Creating a Mirrored RAID reformats the drive and loads a substantial RAID driver and some tables onto it. When completed, the drive is inherently a member of a RAID set, and will continue to be so even if moved to another Mac.
    because of this, you cannot create a RAID directly on a standard drive that contains data already in any reasonable, risk-free way.
    To amplify what The Hatter has said above, Mirrored RAID is not Backup. Mirrored RAID only increases mean time to repair to keep a drive failure from becoming a Data Disaster. You still need a Backup. Mirrored RAID does not protect you from deletions from user error, crazy software, or "just because".
    I run a mirrored RAID in my Home Server, which contains all the Users files for everyone in the Household. And I also recognize (after being burned by it) that Mirrored RAID is helpful, but not a sufficient Backup by itself. I back up the Users Drive automatically to an External drive using Time Machine. [So what I am advising is not just theoretical, I am living what I am advising.]
    With WD Black 1TB  and other very good drives in the under US$100 range, there is really no reason NOT to invest in several drives for such an undertaking.

  • Can a Time Capsule be partitioned? Is having a HD mirror the contents of the TC a good safeguard for potential HD/TC failure?

    I have a few questions about the Time Capsule
    I am going to use a 2TB time capsule to do wireless backups of my Macbook, but also manually store files (photos, movies, music etc). Can I partition the TC? I want to have maximum storage for photos, movies etc and only 500GB for the time machine backups. If partitioning is not possible, will old backups automatically delete themselves from the TC as the storage fills up with the other files I load up on there? Or will I have to delete the old backups manually myself?
    Also, as a safe guard, I plan to get a 2TB portable hard rive (Mac & time machine supported) to completely mirror the contents of the time capsule (i.e.. have 2 back ups of separate disks). I understand I will have to plug this into the Macbook each time (to do the time machine backups and add new files), but my question is whether or not this setup is a good way to keep multiple backups, just in case one of the Hard Drives (most likely the TC) dies. I'm quite new to the back up game, but I want to minimise risk (of course) and keep a consistency between the portable hard drive and the TC: I want them to be identical so I don't have files/backups on one HD but not on the other.
    I hope to get some good responses !

    You cannot partition a TC. Not without voiding warranty, opening it and doing it externally.
    Even when you do external partition the TC will throw up disk errors so don't go that way.
    See pondini on ways to control the size of the sparsebundle.
    Q3 here http://pondini.org/TM/Time_Capsule.html
    Also, as a safe guard, I plan to get a 2TB portable hard rive (Mac & time machine supported) to completely mirror the contents of the time capsule (i.e.. have 2 back ups of separate disks). I understand I will have to plug this into the Macbook each time (to do the time machine backups and add new files), but my question is whether or not this setup is a good way to keep multiple backups,
    Time Machine is far more limited than you think..
    You cannot backup the TC.. it is a network drive. It is used as a target for the backup but it cannot be included in the backup. Therefore it is not possible to do what you are planning.. at least without buying another backup software like CCC which does have the ability to backup network drives.
    In many ways the problem is that TC is not designed as a NAS.. which is what you want to use it as.
    It is better IMHO to buy a NAS, if that is what you want.. although most NAS that are TM compatible don't handle TM very well, CCC can. Every NAS made can back itself up.. so you simply have a USB drive plugged in and the NAS keep itself backed up. Buy a decent NAS with mirrored drives and that also helps.. not for backup but protection against a faulty drive.

  • Solaris 10 upgrade with mirrored OS (meta-device) partition

    I will going to upgrade my host from Solaris 10 5/08 (U5) to Solaris 10 10/09 (U8). The installation media is a cdrom.
    On my host, I used Solaris Volume Manager (SVM) to mirror /, /var, and swap.
    My Question is:
    Before the upgrade, should I just need to break one side of mirrors which will be sufficient for the upgrade process, or should I convert them back to physical device?
    How should I proceed?
    Thanks.

    chewr wrote:
    Firstly, Thanks for your answer. I hope that it will work as you said.
    But I am thinking that the OS upgrade process will boot from the cdrom, and it will only look for physical device to do the upgrade. That's the reason I am concerning whether the OS, which booted from cdrom, will able to see the meta-device?Solaris 10 boot media should be able to see and recognize the metadevices. Previous versions could not.
    On the other hand, if I need to remove all meta-device for the upgrade, will data be safe and intact on the physical device when the OS booted from cdrom?Safe? If you do reconfigure the system to not use any SVM devices for the OS, then yes the data is still there. I'm not sure what you're asking, or how the data might be at risk.
    Darren

  • SP 2013 - Database Recovery Mode When Using SQL Server Mirroring

    Hello Community,
    Our DBA is configuring a High Availability Architecture for our SharePoint 2013 Farm.  Essentially he is using SQL Server Database mirroring with a clustered automatic failover using a witness server.  He has informed me that mirroring requires
    that the databases are set to Full Recovery Mode, but that several of the databases are set to Simple Recovery Mode, the databases are the following:
    SearchService_DB
    SearchService_DB_CrawlStore
    SearchService_DB_AnalyticsReportingStore
    SearchService_DB_LinksStore
    WSS_UsageApplication
    User_Profile_DB
    User_Sync_DB
    User_Social_DB
    However, when I checked the following article -
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc678868.aspx - I see that Simple Recovery Mode is the default configuration for these databases.  So, finally, here is my question - will it be detrimental to these databases to set them to the Full Recovery
    Mode?
    Thanks!
    Tom
    Tom Molskow - Senior SharePoint Architect - Microsoft Community Contributor 2011 and 2012 Award -
    Linked-In - SharePoint Gypsy

    This really depends on your recovery objectives. The main reason for taking log backups, aside from truncating the log, is to be able to recover to a specific point-in-time. This is very helpful in mission-critical, highly transactional systems. I have not
    seen a SharePoint environment require a point-in-time restore of the content or application service database. So for this case, you can overwrite the LDF bakups. Just make sure that you can recover your databases appropriately and meet your recovery objectives
    on the farm level.
    As far as the log file growth is concerned, you are correct. If you cap the size of your LDF file to let's say 10 GB, regular log backups will truncate the log, thereby, having space for additional transaction log records. The only risk here is when your
    log backups are not frequent enough that the LDF file fills up before the next log backup runs to truncate the log. You run the risk of your database behaving as read-only and that will affect the site collections/applications using those databases
    Edwin Sarmiento SQL Server MVP | Microsoft Certified Master
    Blog |
    Twitter | LinkedIn
    SQL Server High Availability and Disaster Recover Deep Dive Course

  • Xserve - Mirrored RAID Failed? Degraded? Confused...

    Hi,
    Can anyone shed some light on this situation please? Disk utility tells me one thing and Server Monitor tells me another.
    I have an X-Serve with 3 drives and a Mirrored RAID Set running 10.5.8.
    Server Monitor is showing a yellow status for disk 1 and disk 2. Raid Status: Degraded (Mirror) Pre-failure Warning: No Warnings
    Disk Utility on the other hand shows that the Mirrored RAID sets are Degraded because disk2s4 = Failed and disk2s2 = Failed.
    Running disk utility commands in terminal also show disk2s4 and disk2s2 as Failed.
    I have not yet tried to Rebuild or eject / reconnect the disk. The only thing I've really done is some research and rebooted the server.
    It sounds like disk 2 has failed. Is there any way to confirm it's dead? Are there any serious risks of trying to rebuild?
    Thanks.
    - F4st

    I'm not sure why you think you're seeing conflicting information…
    Server Monitor is showing a yellow status for disk 1 and disk 2. Raid Status: Degraded (Mirror) Pre-failure Warning: No Warnings
    OK, So Server Monitor says the RAID is in a degraded state…
    Disk Utility […] shows that the Mirrored RAID sets are Degraded because disk2s4 = Failed and disk2s2 = Failed
    Running disk utility commands in terminal also show disk2s4 and disk2s2 as Failed
    I don't see this is anything different. All three methods are telling you disk2 has failed and your mirror is relying on disk1 for all activity.
    Is there any way to confirm it's dead?
    Umm.. you mean other than Server Monitor, Disk Utility.app and diskutil?
    Face it, it's dead. It's had it.
    Are there any serious risks of trying to rebuild?
    Sure. If the disk is dead, it's entirely possible that rebuilding the array on that disk will fail. You run the risk of a problem on disk1 and then all your data is gone.
    My advice: Replace disk2 as soon as possible. If not sooner.

  • Upgrade using Db mirroring

    Hi Everyone,
    I came to know that using SQL Server database mirroring, we can perform the upgrades with minimal downtime.
    How that is possible? Can anyone elaborate ?
    I have done some homework reading about this and wanted to confirm on this.
    Assume I have old server is SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition and new server is SQL Server 2008 Enterprise Edition.
    Now, I am going to Setup High Safety mode without witness. I dont want witness because, we have risk Automatic failover and I don't want that happen in middle of upgrade.
    Also make sure logins , orphan users are fixed, jobs ,linked servers are created on the new server.
    once everything is sync , initiate a manual failover.
    use master
    go
    alter database <dbname> set partner failover;
    go
    Is this the way we can perform upgrades with minimal downtime ?
    Again, once the upgrade is done and verified from error log, do we remove db mirroring and point the applications to the new server?
    Please correct me if I am wrong and am I missing anything here?
    Thanks in Advance.

    Yes, I think you get the idea. Something like (brief outline):
    App connected to A
    BACKUP DATABASE on A
    RESTORE DATABASE on B WITH NORECOVERY
    BACKUP LOG on A
    RESTORE LOG on B WITH NORECOVERY
    1. Stop/Disconnect app from A
    BACKUP LOG on A WITH NORECOVERY --The option make sure no more modifications on A
    RESTORE LOG on B WITH RECOVERY
    2. Start/connect app to B
    As you probably realize, with some practice and preparation, we can achieve a very short time-span between timepoint 1. and 2. above.
    Regarding Naveen's suggestion about log shipping: Yes, it is possible to use log shipping for this. Personally, I see little value in configuring and implementing log shipping solely for the purpose of an upgrade. But of course it depends on the circumstances,
    and usual. :-)
    Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP |
    web | blog

  • Drive in mirror consistantly going offline

    I have an Apple G5 Xserve running 10.4.9
    I have the boot drives in a mirror'd configuration
    It is working as a file and mailserver to approx 20 clients (mac and windows), I have had no problems for many months.
    One of the drives in the mirror failed.
    I reseated the drive just in case I could get it to respond, but nothing
    I replaced the drive and rebuilt the RAID, which completed successfully.
    But now every morning I find that the Mirror is again degraded with the same drive showing "failed"
    I use "disk utility" and rebuild the RAID. This again completes successfully
    The problem is occurring nightly between midnight and 1am, when nothing is going on on the server.
    The following is in the logs
    Apr 16 01:00:55 sybserver kernel[0]: AppleRAID::completeRAIDRequest - error 0xe00002ca detected for set "Mirror" (4FEDAB08-9DE9-42BA-9951-8CC450483379), member C75E19D6-DB06-43A5-8413-ED686EDFBCE0, set byte offset = 1611411456.
    Apr 16 01:00:55 sybserver kernel[0]: AppleRAID::recover() member C75E19D6-DB06-43A5-8413-ED686EDFBCE0 from set "Mirror" (4FEDAB08-9DE9-42BA-9951-8CC450483379) has been marked offline.
    Apr 16 01:00:55 sybserver kernel[0]: AppleRAID::restartSet - restarting set "Mirror" (4FEDAB08-9DE9-42BA-9951-8CC450483379).
    There is nothing in the logs prior to, or after this issue occurs.
    I have been searching but cannot find an answer, can anyone point me at information that may help solve this.
    TIA
    Tony

    Are you rebuilding the mirror with the same (failed) drive, or are you replacing the drive each time.
    If you're using the same drive I think it's obvious - there's a fault on that drive and you're risking your data by continuing to use/rely on that drive.
    If you are replacing the drive each time then the question is whether it's the same drive bay that's failing every time. If it it it could indicate a faulty bay/connector that's impacting the drive.

  • Second drive in mirrored raid empty????

    I have a xserve with two identical drive. They were configured to mirror one another. Some how that is not the case any longer. When I look in disk utility the raid configuration is simply not there and the second drive is empty.
    I did not do the initial setup of the raid. I would like to reestablish the mirrored configuration but am scared about my existing data on the main drive.
    Can i safely setup the raid mirror configuration without risking the data on drive 1?
    Can someone walk me through the steps?
    Thank you,
    Jeremy

    The RAID configuration is not there and the second drive has no data whatsoever.
    In passing, the longest I ever had any kind of RAID last was 6 months before everything was lost or messed up royally.
    1. I would.
    2. Backup first to another drive...
    I strongly recommend that you get a good Firewire drive to Clone your Internal drive to ASAP!
    http://eshop.macsales.com/search/firewire+drives
    Many of those come with Backup SW, or...
    Get carbon copy cloner to make an exact copy of your old HD to the New one...
    http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html
    SuperDuper...
    http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/
    Or the most expensive one & my favorite, Tri-Backup...
    http://www.tri-edre.com/english/tribackup.html
    Creating the RAID will not format both drives... right?
    I haven't tested a Mirror RAID on that, but RAID 0 will wipe the Directories out iirc.

  • Time Capsule vs. existing wireless mirrored hdd

    Greetings,
    I've recently purchased a network hard drive (1TB mirrored) connected to my AE(n) for wireless connectivity. I'm trying to find out if there's anything really different about that vs. Time Capsule backup wise via Time Machine.
    In a nutshell: can i use time machine to back up all 3 of my macs to my existing wireless drive, or is there something in the Time Capsule box / Time Machine software that prevents it?
    note: i've found that if i create a user on my existing network hdd and mount it as a network drive then go to TM there's not an option to see this network drive.
    I fully understand no one has TC yet, just hoping someone knows
    Message was edited by: BKRonline

    The official line from Apple is described here:
    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306833
    ...and by inference, Time Machine backups to NAS devices are not supported. There has been a lot of speculation as to why Apple has put in place this limitation - you can look that up with an internet search (as well as a hack to get around this Time Machine limitation at your own risk). Exactly what Apple has done in designing Time Capsule so that they can support use of this particular NAS device with Time Machine is - currently - unknown.

  • Resize mirrored ZFS rpool

    I have a ZFS rpool mirrored with 2 hard disks. I need to resize it with bigger capacity. Below is my questions;
    1. Can we resize a mirrored rpool?
    2. If yes, How? (Please provide me the source) Thanks.
    3. If the rpool is using local disk and i have other storage LUNs can be attached... what is the best practice to increase the rpool size?
    4. If resizing is not possible, can someone shed some light how could we migrate a mount point from rpool (local disk) to new pool (SAN storage). Please advise.
    Thank you.

    Yes, it is possible to increase the root pool size by either attaching a larger disk and detaching the smaller disk or by using zpool replace to do an outright replacement. If you attach a disk from remote storage, so that you have a local disk and remote disk for a mirrored root pool, then there is a risk that if the remote disk is slow to come up after a boot, for example, the pool might be degraded. Similarly, if you use remote storage for both root pool disks. Forcing loading the drivers early in the boot process can help this.
    Which Solaris 10 release is this?
    Does the existing root pool disk have existing unused slices or is all the disk space in slice 0?
    There is a way to expand the root pool disk slice if existing unused slices exist but its a bit more complicated, but I can walk you through it.
    The doc that describes root pool disk replacement is here:
    http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23823_01/html/819-5461/ghzvz.html#scrolltoc
    How to Replace a Disk in the ZFS Root Pool
    Thanks,
    Cindy

  • Mirrored backup on external HDD fails

    Hi all,
    We have attached a HSB drive to server. When we backup on local drive and USB drive at the same time (mirrored backup) the following error is returned:
    Executed as user: NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM. The mirror device "G:\New_Backups\Automation\Automation_2014-09-03.bak" and the mirror device "I:\New_Backups\Automation\Automation_2014-09-03.bak" have different device specifications. [SQLSTATE
    42000] (Error 3212)  BACKUP DATABASE is terminating abnormally. [SQLSTATE 42000] (Error 3013).  The step failed.
    What's wrong with my SQL Server?
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    Leila

    Hi Leila,
    Mirroring applies both to disk and tape (disks do not support continuation tapes). As in earlier versions of SQL
    Server, all backup devices for a single backup or restore operation must be of the same type, disk or tape. Within these broader classes, you must use
    similar devices that have the same properties. Insufficiently similar devices generate an error message (3212).
    To avoid the risk of a device mismatch, use devices that are equivalent, such as, only drives with the same model
    number from the same manufacturer.
    For more details, please go through the below URL:
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645601(v=sql.105).aspx
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175053(v=sql.110).aspx

  • Mirror external drives

    I have 2 new Seagate 3 tb goflex desk drives that I am trying to mirror using the OSX disk utility.  The problem is I keep getting a posix error operation not permitted.
    The drives work great and I am using carbon copy cloner to keep them in synch right now, but I would prefer a true raid setup.
    Any ideas?  Seagate was NO help.
    Thanks

    OKCCowboy wrote:
    I have 2 new Seagate 3 tb goflex desk drives that I am trying to mirror using the OSX disk utility.  The problem is I keep getting a posix error operation not permitted.
    The drives work great and I am using carbon copy cloner to keep them in synch right now, but I would prefer a true raid setup.
    Any ideas?  Seagate was NO help.
    Thanks
    Typically if you want to use an external RAID system, you would get an enclosure which does the RAID for you in hardware and then connects to your computer via a single connection. Not only are such solutions far faster (than software RAID) they are also far more reliable. Examples of such a device are the Drobo and the Promise RAID.
    However it should in theory be possible to do what you want, but beaware the risk of your RAID degrading is much higher as it will be far easier to accidently disconnect one of your disks.
    As you have seen Disk Utility seems to be unhappy with this (maybe Apple are trying to tell you something). I have in similar 'unusual' software RAID requirements resorted to using the command line in the Terminal.app to manually build a RAID setup. In my case it is when I want to have multiple volumes on a mirrored RAID disk. You might want to refer the Unix man page for the diskutil command before doing the following.
    sudo diskutil appleRAID create mirror nameofset JHFS+ /dev/disk1 /dev/disk2
    You can check the correct /dev/disk1 etc. values to use by first doing
    diskutil list
    If you are (like me) mirroring an individual partition it might look something like
    /dev/disk1s2

  • Using Disk suite to remove a mirroring

    / had been mirrored and now I need to back off the mirror.
    d98: Mirror
    Submirror 1: d9
    Submirror 2: d8
    d9: Submirror of d98
    Device: c0t1d0s0
    d8: Submirror of d98
    Device: c0t0d0s0
    I metadetached one of the submirrors (d8) from the mirror, then did a
    metaroot with the argument of the disk device of the detached
    submirror
    (e.g. /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0), then rebooted.
    On reboot, I get (after the memory check) the message like "not
    correct file system". Then the system mounts it as read only. The
    vfstab is correct - that is the detached mirror device is the entry
    for /.
    # more /etc/vfstab
    #device device mount FS fsck mount
    mount
    #to mount to fsck point type pass at
    boot options
    /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0 /dev/rdsk/c0t1d0s0 / ufs 1 no
    As the system could not mount /, we decide to mount / into
    /dev/md/dsk/d98, modifying /etc/vfstab as follows:
    /dev/md/dsk/d98 /dev/md/rdsk/d98 / ufs 1 no
    This way system works fine but DiskSuite Tool (Metadevice Editor)
    displays mirror d98 using / but with status URGENT, concat/stripe d9
    with status OK, c0t1d0s0 as the only stripe (#0) of d9.
    Does anybody have an idea about how erase mirror d98 since it's not
    necessary anymore?
    Any ideas are more than welcome.
    Thanks in advance,
    Bruno

    Well a "metaclear -r d98" will delete the mirror and its submirrors completely based on the following conditions as per the metaclear man page:
    -r Recursively deletes specified metadevices and hot
    spare pools, but does not delete metadevices on which
    others depend.
    So if d98 or d8 or d9 are still in use in some way - they shouldn't be deleted.
    Use this command at your own risk.

Maybe you are looking for