and I got strange outputs from zpool -status where a particular device (but
not the one that was being replaced) was listed twice
About that issue, please check my post in:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=48483tstart=0
This message posted from opensolaris.org
I have a pool with 3 partitions in it. However, one of them is no longer
valid, the disk was removed and modified so that the original partition is no
longer available. I cannot get zpool to remove it from the pool. How do I
tell zfs to take this item out of the pool if not with zfs remove ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/10/2008 08:07:37 PM:
I finaly found the cause of the error
Since my disks are mounted in a cassette with four in each I had to
disconnect all cables to them to replace the crashed disk.
When re-attaching the cables I reversed the order of them by
accident.
I have a machine that the BIOS cannot see my SiL3124 controller. Solaris
of course sees it just fine. This means that I can't boot from it however.
What I've done it this. I installed Solaris onto a temporary IDE disk and
ran Tim Foster's zfs-actual-root-install.sh script on it to prep the ZFS
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
I want to remove c0d0p4:
# zpool remove bigpool c0d0p4
cannot remove c0d0p4: only inactive hot spares or cache devices can be removed
Use replace, not remove.
Regards,
markm
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
My understanding is that the answers to the questions posed below are both YES
due the transactional design of ZFS. However, I'm working with some folks that
need more details or documents describing the design/behavior without having to
look through all the source code.
[b]Scenario 1[/b]
*
Todd Moore wrote:
My understanding is that the answers to the questions posed below are both
YES due the transactional design of ZFS. However, I'm working with some
folks that need more details or documents describing the design/behavior
without having to look through all the source
My understanding is that the answers to the questions posed below are both YES
due the transaction
al design of ZFS. However, I'm working with some folks that need more details
or documents describ
ing the design/behavior without having to look through all the source code.
[b]Scenario 1[/b]
To me it seems it's a special case that has not been accounted for...
While is seems zfs is checking the disks against the pool and handle them
nicely using labels/meta-data, even if they are mounted on different
controllers, the problem I've encountered has to do with that a specific
