Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: ZFS related kernel panic

2006-12-05 Thread Douglas Denny
On 12/5/06, Peter Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmm... I just noticed this qla2100.conf option: # During link down conditions enable/disable the reporting of # errors. #0 = disabled, 1 = enable hba0-link-down-error=1; hba1-link-down-error=1; This is the driver the we are using in thi

[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: ZFS related kernel panic

2006-12-05 Thread Peter Eriksson
Hmm... I just noticed this qla2100.conf option: # During link down conditions enable/disable the reporting of # errors. #0 = disabled, 1 = enable hba0-link-down-error=1; hba1-link-down-error=1; I _wonder_ what might possibly happen if I change that 1 to a 0 (zero)... :-) This message post

[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: ZFS related kernel panic

2006-12-05 Thread Peter Eriksson
>> So ZFS should be more resilient against write errors, and the SCSI disk or >> FC drivers >> should be more resilient against LIPs (the most likely cause of your >> problem) or other >> transient errors. (Alternatively, the ifp driver should be updated to >> support the >> maximum number of ta

[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: ZFS related kernel panic

2006-12-05 Thread Anton B. Rang
> But it's still not the application's problem to handle the underlying > device failure. But it is the application's problem to handle an error writing to the file system -- that's why the file system is allowed to return errors. ;-) Some applications might not check them, some applications mi