< said:
> I am not sure how the original description leads to conclusion that
> problem is related to parallel mounting. From my point of view it
> sounds like a problem that root pool mounting happens based on name, not
> pool GUID that needs to be passed from the loader. We have seen problem
< said:
> Both 11.3-RELEASE announcement and Release Notes mention this:
>> The ZFS filesystem has been updated to implement parallel mounting.
> I strongly suggest reading Release documentation in case of troubles
> after upgrade, at least. Or better, read *before* updating.
Two servers
Hi.
Maybe different problem (as mav@ noted) with Garrett's but related to
parallel-mounting.
*For Garrett's problem, +1 with Trond. For myself, I incorporate
drive type and No. in pool name to avoid collision between 2
physical drives (one working, and one emergency) in the same host.
Hi,
I am not sure how the original description leads to conclusion that
problem is related to parallel mounting. From my point of view it
sounds like a problem that root pool mounting happens based on name, not
pool GUID that needs to be passed from the loader. We have seen problem
like that
CC'ing Alexander Motin who comitted the change.
20.07.2019 1:21, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> I recently upgraded several file servers from 11.2 to 11.3. All of
> them boot from a ZFS pool called "tank" (the data is in a different
> pool). In a couple of instances (which caused me to have to take
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:21-0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> Other than laboriously running "zpool labelclear -f /dev/somedisk" for
> every piece of media that comes into my hands, is there anything else
> I could have done to avoid this?
I usually incorporate the hostname in the pool names. At one
I recently upgraded several file servers from 11.2 to 11.3. All of
them boot from a ZFS pool called "tank" (the data is in a different
pool). In a couple of instances (which caused me to have to take a
late-evening 140-mile drive to the remote data center where they are
located), the servers
