> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Karl Wagner
>
> The only thing I think Oracle should have done differently is to allow
> either a downgrade or creating a send stream in a lower version
> (reformatting the data where necessary
Hi Andreas,
Which release is this... Can you provide the /etc/release info?
It works fine for me on a S11 Express (b162) system:
# zfs create -o readonly=off pond/amy
# zfs get readonly pond/amy
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
pond/amy readonly off local
This is somewhat redundant sy
Hi,
I have tried running
zfs create -o readonly=off tank/test
on two different Solaris 11 Express 11/11 (x86) machines resulting in
segfaults. Can anybody verify this behavior? Or is this some
idiosyncrasy of my configuration?
Any help would be appreciated.
Regards,
Andreas
___
Actually, I think there is a world of difference.
Backwards compatibility is something we all need. We need to be able to
access content created in previous versions of software in newer
versions.
You cannot expect an older version to be compatible with the new
features in a later version. T
> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
>
> At some point, people will bitterly regret some "zpool upgrade" with no way
> back.
>
> uhm... and how is that different than anything else in the software world?
>
> No attempt at backward compatibility, and no downgrade path, not eve
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>
>One idea I have is that a laptop which only has a single HDD slot,
> often has SD/MMC cardreader slots. If populated with a card for L2ARC,
> can it be expected to boost the l
