On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Gary Mills mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 11:44:14PM -0500, Jim Dunham wrote:
If there are two (or more) instances of ZFS in the end-to-end data
path, each instance is responsible for its own redundancy and error
recovery. There is no
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:53:15PM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Gary Mills mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 11:44:14PM -0500, Jim Dunham wrote:
If there are two (or more) instances of ZFS in the end-to-end data
path, each instance is
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 11:44:14PM -0500, Jim Dunham wrote:
I wrote:
I realize that this configuration is not supported.
The configuration is supported, but not in the manner mentioned below.
If there are two (or more) instances of ZFS in the end-to-end data
path, each instance is
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 08:22:13AM -0600, Gary Mills wrote:
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 11:44:14PM -0500, Jim Dunham wrote:
I wrote:
I realize that this configuration is not supported.
The configuration is supported, but not in the manner mentioned below.
If there are two (or more)
I realize that this configuration is not supported. What's required
to make it work? Consider a file server running ZFS that exports a
volume with Iscsi. Consider also an application server that imports
the LUN with Iscsi and runs a ZFS filesystem on that LUN. All of the
redundancy and disk
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 04:26:13PM -0600, Gary Mills wrote:
I realize that this configuration is not supported. What's required
It would be silly for ZFS to support zvols as iSCSI LUNs and then say
you can put anything but ZFS on them. I'm pretty sure there's no such
restriction.
(That said,
Gary,
I realize that this configuration is not supported.
The configuration is supported, but not in the manner mentioned below.
If there are two (or more) instances of ZFS in the end-to-end data
path, each instance is responsible for its own redundancy and error
recovery. There is no
