On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:55:29PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
On Nov 10, 2011, at 7:47 PM, David Magda wrote:
On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:41, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:17:55PM -0400, John D Groenveld wrote:
Under both Solaris 10 and Solaris 11x, I receive the evil
On Nov 12, 2011, at 00:55, Richard Elling wrote:
Better than ?
If the disks advertise 512 bytes, the only way around it is with a whitelist.
I would
be rather surprised if Oracle sells 4KB sector disks for Solaris systems…
Solaris 10. OpenSolaris.
But would it be surprising to use SANs
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:15:31AM -0500, David Magda wrote:
On Nov 12, 2011, at 00:55, Richard Elling wrote:
Better than ?
If the disks advertise 512 bytes, the only way around it is with a
whitelist. I would
be rather surprised if Oracle sells 4KB sector disks for Solaris systems?
On Nov 12, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:15:31AM -0500, David Magda wrote:
On Nov 12, 2011, at 00:55, Richard Elling wrote:
Better than ?
If the disks advertise 512 bytes, the only way around it is with a
whitelist. I would
be rather surprised if
On 09/30/11 08:12 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 09/30/11 08:03 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Ian Collins wrote:
Slowing down replication is not a good move!
Do you prefer pool corruption? ;-)
Probably they fixed a dire bug and this is the cost of the fix.
Could be. I
