Quoth Christine Tran on Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:58:13PM -0400: > I then set some logging level and refreshed. > # svccfg -s iscsitgt setprop iscsitgt/qlog-lvl = integer: 0xffffffff
Is this supported? If I recall correctly, the target configuration was private and to be modified via iscsitadm. > Some time later I needed to stop logging, because I didn't check for the > original value of iscsitgt/qlog-lvl before I changed it, I decided to > rollback to the initial snapshot. After the refresh, my "ponies" target > disappeared, but all the zvol targets remained. This bothers me for a > few reasons: > > 1) This is not what I intend to happen. In my mind, something like > logging is OK for SMF control but I didn't expect my iSCSI configuration > to enter the repository. We've had a few threads about what should be > configurable under SMF, and the original answer used to be "everything" > but for practicality this is not a good or do-able answer. Can you explain what is different about those pieces of configuration that make you think they should be stored differently? > 2) In a simpler, less nuanced view, what I didn't use SMF to configure, > I shouldn't lose through SMF. I used iscsitadm to create my target, > while it's acceptable that I could lose my target by blowing away a > config file or trashing a device label, I didn't expect it to be in an > SMF snapshot. Should I expect this going forward? This seems an admin > trap to me. There didn't seem to be a way to set debug level from > iscsitadm directly. You should expect this going forward. Perhaps we should mandate that even when configuration is stored in private properties in the repository, that they are in the repository at all should be documented for the administrator's benefit. > 3) ZFS zvol target info is kept somewhere else, obviously, because I > didn't lose those. This inconsistency is a burr. Yes, I believe shareadm similarly exposes differences in ZFS's and UFS's ability to store filesystem configuration. If consistency is mandatory, then it seems that the tradeoff becomes utilizing ZFS's new capability vs implementing similar capability in UFS. Do you think consistency is important enough to justify enhancing UFS? > Should I open up a bug about this usage, it seems like it could be > "friendlier" somehow, or just get used to this, the way of the future? Go ahead and file a bug. Even if we decide to close it, it will be there for other people to find. I have wondered if we should implement a way to revert individual property groups or properties from a given snapshot. Do you think that would have helped here? David
