Uwe Dippel wrote: > [i]Count me in. I never saw LU modify my old BE other than mentioned by > Michael[/i] > > I believe you 100%. It is a pity you were not around, when some of us lost > their chance to boot, and couldn't boot from grub (reinstall) neither. > Luckily, I never lost data, only the ability to boot. But that is logical, > isn't it? > Again, I'm not arguing against LU, which is close to perfect; but safe it is > not. > > Uwe > There have been known issues where live-upgrade messed up the menu.lst and/or where they left some errant mountpoints (particularly in the ZFS boot case) which were known to stop a BE from being booted, but in all cases the BE itself was not "modified" so that it couldn't boot. Simple matter of fixing menu.lst and/or some minor zfs set mountpoint=<blah> rpool/<blah> commands to get over it.
It HAS happened to me, but I've read the messages and been able to recover. I'm sorry I wasn't listening on the sysadmin-discuss alias when you had your problem, as I would have gladly helped you with the issue. As stated earlier, the only thing that LU changes is the LU stuff and the menu.lst on the BE. The presence of ZFS means that there are/were cases when ZFS boot support came out where the automatically mounted datasets in the zfs pool got "confused" between BEs. This was/is pretty easy to fix. All I'm trying to say is, your original BE is NEVER changed to the point where it is not bootable. However, it is possible for you to get the boot archive in a state where it won't, but it is recoverable. I simply find the use of the word "unsafe" too harsh for the reality of what the issue is. HTH Mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3237 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/install-discuss/attachments/20090316/a00de0a8/attachment.bin>
