To be honest, I don't think it's that much of a risk:
We get regular power cuts at home (probably 8-10 a year), and I've got a
solaris box that was originally snv_70, and is now snv_98 that's survived over
half a dozen without any issues at all. It wasn't ZFS boot originally, but has
been
Miles Nordin wrote:
mb if I'm risking it more than usual when the procedure is done?
yeah, that is my opinion: when the procedure is done, using ZFS
without a backup is risking the data more than using UFS or ext3
without a backup. Is that a clear statement?
I can ramble on, but maybe
I don't know much about working with slices in Solaris I'm afraid, but to me
that sounds like a pretty good setup for a home server, and I can't see why the
layout would cause you any problems.
In theory you'll be able to swap controllers without any problems too. That's
one of the real
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:13:59 PST
Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know much about working with slices in Solaris I'm afraid,
but to me that sounds like a pretty good setup for a home server, and
I can't see why the layout would cause you any problems.
In theory you'll be able to swap
Well yes, but he doesn't sound too worried about performance, and I'm not aware
of any other issues with splitting drives?
And if you did want performance later, it would probably be possible to add a
flash drive for cache once the prices drop.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Miles Nordin wrote:
mb 5) Given that this is all cheap PC hardware ... can I move a
mb disk from a broken controller to another
zpool export, zpool import.
I was testing with the rpool, but zpool import -f when booting for the
CD did the trick. Thanks for the hint.
If the pool is
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Ross wrote:
Well yes, but he doesn't sound too worried about performance, and
I'm not aware of any other issues with splitting drives?
Besides some possible loss of performance, splitting drives tends to
blow natural redundancy models where you want as little coupling as
mb == Martin Blom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mb if I'm risking it more than usual when the procedure is done?
yeah, that is my opinion: when the procedure is done, using ZFS
without a backup is risking the data more than using UFS or ext3
without a backup. Is that a clear statement?
I can
