I run over 30 instances of Virtualbox with various OSs without issue all running ontop of ZFS environments. Most of my clients have at least 3 VMs running a variant of Windows ontop of ZFS without any issues. Not sure what you mean with your NAT issue. Perhaps posting your setup info might be of more help.
-- Jason Belec Sent from my iPad > On Apr 1, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Eric Jaw <naisa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 7:04:39 AM UTC-4, jasonbelec wrote: >> ZFS is lots of parts, in most cases lots of cheap unreliable parts, >> refurbished parts, yadda yadda, as posted on this thread and many, many >> others, any issues are probably not ZFS but the parts of the whole. Yes, it >> could be ZFS, after you confirm that all the parts ate pristine, maybe. > > I don't think it's ZFS. ZFS is pretty solid. In my specific case, I'm trying > to figure out why VirtualBox is creating these issues. I'm pretty sure that's > the root cause, but I don't know why yet. So I'm just speculating at this > point. Of course, I want to get my ZFS up and running so I can move on to > what I really need to do, so it's easy to jump on a conclusion about > something that I haven't thought of in my position. Hope you can understand > >> >> My oldest system running ZFS is an Mac Mini Intel Core Duo with 3GB RAM (not >> ECC) it is the home server for music, tv shows, movies, and some interim >> backups. The mini has been modded for ESATA and has 6 drives connected. The >> pool is 2 RaidZ of 3 mirrored with copies set at 2. Been running since ZFS >> was released from Apple builds. Lost 3 drives, eventually traced to a new >> cable that cracked at the connector which when hot enough expanded lifting 2 >> pins free of their connector counter parts resulting in errors. Visually >> almost impossible to see. I replaced port multipliers, Esata cards, RAM, >> mini's, power supply, reinstalled OS, reinstalled ZFS, restored ZFS data >> from backup, finally to find the bad connector end one because it was hot >> and felt 'funny'. >> >> Frustrating, yes, educational also. The happy news is, all the data was >> fine, wife would have torn me to shreds if photos were missing, music was >> corrupt, etc., etc.. And this was on the old out of date but stable ZFS >> version we Mac users have been hugging onto for dear life. YMMV >> >> Never had RAM as the issue, here in the mad science lab across 10 rotating >> systems or in any client location - pick your decade. However I don't use >> cheap RAM either, and I only have 2 Systems requiring ECC currently that >> don't even connect to ZFS as they are both XServers with other lives. >> >> >> -- >> Jason Belec >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Apr 1, 2014, at 12:13 AM, Daniel Becker <razz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 31, 2014, at 7:41 PM, Eric Jaw <nais...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I started using ZFS about a few weeks ago, so a lot of it is still new to >>>> me. I'm actually not completely certain about "proper procedure" for >>>> repairing a pool. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to clear the errors after >>>> the scrub, before or after (little things). I'm not sure if it even >>>> matters. When I restarted the VM, the checksum counts cleared on its own. >>> >>> The counts are not maintained across reboots. >>> >>> >>>> On the first scrub it repaired roughly 1.65MB. None on the second scub. >>>> Even after the scrub there were still 43 data errors. I was expecting they >>>> were going to go away. >>>> >>>>> errors: 43 data errors, use '-v' for a list >>> >>> What this means is that in these 43 cases, the system was not able to >>> correct the error (i.e., both drives in a mirror returned bad data). >>> >>> >>>> This is an excellent question. They're in 'Normal' mode. I remember >>>> looking in to this before and decided normal mode should be fine. I might >>>> be wrong. So thanks for bringing this up. I'll have to check it out again. >>> >>> The reason I was asking is that these symptoms would also be consistent >>> with something outside the VM writing to the disks behind the VM’s back; >>> that’s unlikely to happen accidentally with disk images, but raw disks are >>> visible to the host OS as such, so it may be as simple as Windows deciding >>> that it should initialize the “unformatted” (really, formatted with an >>> unknown filesystem) devices. Or it could be a raid controller that stores >>> its array metadata in the last sector of the array’s disks. >>> >>> >>>> memtest86 and memtest86+ for 18 hours came out okay. I'm on my third scrub >>>> and the number or errors has remained at 43. Checksum errors continue to >>>> pile up as the pool is getting scrubbed. >>>> >>>> I'm just as flustered about this. Thanks again for the input. >>> >>> Given that you’re seeing a fairly large number of errors in your scrubs, >>> the fact that memtest86 doesn’t find anything at all very strongly suggests >>> that this is not actually a memory issue. > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "zfs-macos" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.