On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:38:47AM -0700, Gino wrote:
>
> we had 5 corrupted zpool (on different servers and different SANs) !
> With Solaris up to S10U3 and Nevada up to snv59 we are able to corrupt
> easily a zpool only disconnecting a few times one or more luns of a
> zpool under high i/o load.
> > Is ZFS really supposed to be more reliable than UFS
> w/ logging, for
> > example, in single disk, root file system scenario?
>
> Yes. The failure to cope with a failed write in an
> unreplicated pool
> affects the availability of the system (because we
> panic), but not the
> underlying reli
