Bart Smaalders wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Not sure. I don't see an advantage to moving off UFS for boot pools. :-)
-J
Except of course that snapshots clones will surely be a nicer
way of recovering from adverse administrative events...
and make live upgrade and patching so much
Hello Jason,
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, 1:02:36 AM, you wrote:
JJWW Hi Robert
JJWW I didn't take any offense. :-) I completely agree with you that zpool
JJWW striping leverages standard RAID-0 knowledge in that if a device
JJWW disappears your RAID group goes poof. That doesn't really
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes unavailable or
develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to protect
your data.
This is a bug, not a feature. We are currently working on fixing it.
--matt
On 19-Dec-06, at 11:51 AM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 10:15, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
I agree with others here that the kernel panic is undesired behavior.
If ZFS would simply offline the zpool and not kernel panic, that would
obviate my request for an informational message. It'd be pretty darn
obvious what was going on.
What about the root/boot
James C. McPherson wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
I agree with others here that the kernel panic is undesired behavior.
If ZFS would simply offline the zpool and not kernel panic, that would
obviate my request for an informational message. It'd be pretty darn
obvious what was going on.
Not sure. I don't see an advantage to moving off UFS for boot pools. :-)
-J
On 12/20/06, James C. McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
I agree with others here that the kernel panic is undesired behavior.
If ZFS would simply offline the zpool and not kernel panic,
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Not sure. I don't see an advantage to moving off UFS for boot pools. :-)
-J
Except of course that snapshots clones will surely be a nicer
way of recovering from adverse administrative events...
-= Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
-r
Al Hopper writes:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes
On Dec 18, 2006, at 17:52, Richard Elling wrote:
In general, the closer to the user you can make policy decisions,
the better
decisions you can make. The fact that we've had 10 years of RAID
arrays
acting like dumb block devices doesn't mean that will continue for
the next
10 years :-)
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in redundancy decisions?
---
Jonathan Edwards writes:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should
On Dec 19, 2006, at 10:15, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the
Torrey McMahon wrote:
The first bug we'll get when adding a ZFS is not going to be able to
fix data inconsistency problems error message to every pool creation or
similar operation is going to be Need a flag to turn off the warning
message...
Richard pines for ditto blocks for data...
--
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in redundancy decisions?
Because if the host controller port goes flaky and
Hello Jason,
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, 8:54:09 PM, you wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in
Hello Jason,
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, 11:23:56 PM, you wrote:
JJWW Hi Robert,
JJWW I don't think its about assuming the admin is an idiot. It happened to
JJWW me in development and I didn't expect it...I hope I'm not an idiot.
JJWW :-)
JJWW Just observing the list, a fair amount of people
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the information I have been gathering
it doesn't
On Dec 18, 2006, at 16:13, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the
comment far below...
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 18, 2006, at 16:13, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment?
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the information I have been gathering
it doesn't appear that ZFS was intended to operate
in a SAN environment.
This
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the information I have been gathering
it doesn't appear that ZFS was
On Dec 17, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the information I have been
Hello Dave,
Friday, December 15, 2006, 9:02:31 PM, you wrote:
DB Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
DB SAN environment? What will and will not work?
ZFS is just a filesystem with just an integrated volume manager.
Ok, it's more than that.
The point is that if any other
I use zfs in a san. I have two Sun V440s running solaris 10 U2, which
have luns assigned to them from my Sun SE 3511. So far, it has worked
flawlessly.
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Dave,
Friday, December 15, 2006, 9:02:31 PM, you wrote:
DB Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in
29 matches
Mail list logo
