Roch - PAE wrote:
Was it over NFS ?
No, local.
Was zil_disable set on the server ?
Not unless it is set by default. I haven't changed any ZFS params.
If it's yes/yes, I still don't know for sure if that would
be grounds for a causal relationship, but I would certainly
be looking into it.
Was it over NFS ?
Was zil_disable set on the server ?
If it's yes/yes, I still don't know for sure if that would
be grounds for a causal relationship, but I would certainly
be looking into it.
-r
Trevor Watson writes:
> Anton B. Rang wrote:
> > Were there any errors reported in /var/adm/messa
Trevor Watson wrote:
Anton B. Rang wrote:
Were there any errors reported in /var/adm/messages, or do you see any
logged via fmdump?
Nothing, unfortunately.
In Solaris 10, 'ls' will not print any error message if reading from a
directory fails. (Fixed in Nevada.) If something damaged a dire
Anton B. Rang wrote:
Were there any errors reported in /var/adm/messages, or do you see any logged
via fmdump?
Nothing, unfortunately.
In Solaris 10, 'ls' will not print any error message if reading from a
directory fails. (Fixed in Nevada.) If something damaged a directory (including
ZFS
Anton B. Rang wrote:
Were there any errors reported in /var/adm/messages, or do you see any logged
via fmdump?
In Solaris 10, 'ls' will not print any error message if reading from a
directory fails. (Fixed in Nevada.) If something damaged a directory (including
ZFS detecting a checksum error)
Were there any errors reported in /var/adm/messages, or do you see any logged
via fmdump?
In Solaris 10, 'ls' will not print any error message if reading from a
directory fails. (Fixed in Nevada.) If something damaged a directory (including
ZFS detecting a checksum error), its contents (or some
