Bart Smaalders wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Not sure. I don't see an advantage to moving off UFS for boot pools. :-)
-J
Except of course that snapshots & clones will surely be a nicer
way of recovering from "adverse administrative events"...
and make live upgrade and patching so much
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Not sure. I don't see an advantage to moving off UFS for boot pools. :-)
-J
Except of course that snapshots & clones will surely be a nicer
way of recovering from "adverse administrative events"...
-= Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performa
Not sure. I don't see an advantage to moving off UFS for boot pools. :-)
-J
On 12/20/06, James C. McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> I agree with others here that the kernel panic is undesired behavior.
> If ZFS would simply offline the zpool and not kernel panic
James C. McPherson wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
I agree with others here that the kernel panic is undesired behavior.
If ZFS would simply offline the zpool and not kernel panic, that would
obviate my request for an informational message. It'd be pretty darn
obvious what was going on.
Wha
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
I agree with others here that the kernel panic is undesired behavior.
If ZFS would simply offline the zpool and not kernel panic, that would
obviate my request for an informational message. It'd be pretty darn
obvious what was going on.
What about the root/boot pool?
Hi Robert,
I agree with others here that the kernel panic is undesired behavior.
If ZFS would simply offline the zpool and not kernel panic, that would
obviate my request for an informational message. It'd be pretty darn
obvious what was going on.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 12/20/06, Robert Milkows
On 19-Dec-06, at 11:51 AM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 10:15, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
"INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes unavailable or
develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to protect
your data."
This is a bug, not a feature. We are currently working on fixing it.
--matt
_
Hello Jason,
Wednesday, December 20, 2006, 1:02:36 AM, you wrote:
JJWW> Hi Robert
JJWW> I didn't take any offense. :-) I completely agree with you that zpool
JJWW> striping leverages standard RAID-0 knowledge in that if a device
JJWW> disappears your RAID group goes poof. That doesn't really req
Hi Robert
I didn't take any offense. :-) I completely agree with you that zpool
striping leverages standard RAID-0 knowledge in that if a device
disappears your RAID group goes poof. That doesn't really require a
notice...was just trying to be complete. :-)
The surprise to me was that detecting
Hello Jason,
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, 11:23:56 PM, you wrote:
JJWW> Hi Robert,
JJWW> I don't think its about assuming the admin is an idiot. It happened to
JJWW> me in development and I didn't expect it...I hope I'm not an idiot.
JJWW> :-)
JJWW> Just observing the list, a fair amount of peop
Hi Robert,
I don't think its about assuming the admin is an idiot. It happened to
me in development and I didn't expect it...I hope I'm not an idiot.
:-)
Just observing the list, a fair amount of people don't expect it. The
likelihood you'll miss this one little bit of very important
information
Hello Jason,
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, 8:54:09 PM, you wrote:
>> > Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
>> > with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
>>
>> why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
>> warn that ZFS isn't directly involv
> Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
> with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in redundancy decisions?
Because if the host controller port goes flaky an
Torrey McMahon wrote:
The first bug we'll get when adding a "ZFS is not going to be able to
fix data inconsistency problems" error message to every pool creation or
similar operation is going to be "Need a flag to turn off the warning
message..."
Richard pines for ditto blocks for data...
--
On Dec 19, 2006, at 10:15, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in red
Jonathan Edwards writes:
> On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
>
> >
> > Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
> > with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
>
> why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
> warn that ZFS isn
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in redundancy decisions?
---
.
On Dec 18, 2006, at 17:52, Richard Elling wrote:
In general, the closer to the user you can make policy decisions,
the better
decisions you can make. The fact that we've had 10 years of RAID
arrays
acting like dumb block devices doesn't mean that will continue for
the next
10 years :-) I
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
-r
Al Hopper writes:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
>
> > On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
> > > Does anyone have a document that descr
It seems to me that the optimal scenario would be network filesystems
on top of ZFS, so you can get the data portability of a SAN, but let
ZFS make all of the decisions. Short of that, ZFS on SAN-attached
JBODs would give a similar benefit. Having benefited tremendously from
being able to easily d
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> Al Hopper wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
> >>> SAN environment? What will and will not work?
comment far below...
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 18, 2006, at 16:13, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? Wh
On Dec 18, 2006, at 16:13, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the i
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the information I have been gathering
it doesn't ap
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 07:57:20PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote:
>
> The section entitled "Does ZFS work with SAN-attached devices?" does not
> make it clear the (some would say) dire effects of not having pool
> redundancy. I think that FAQ should clearly spell out the downside; i.e.,
> where ZFS will
On Dec 17, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the information I have been g
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
> On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
> > Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
> > SAN environment? What will and will not work?
> >
> > From some of the information I have been gathering
> > it doesn't appear tha
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
> Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
> SAN environment? What will and will not work?
>
> From some of the information I have been gathering
> it doesn't appear that ZFS was intended to operate
> in a SAN environment.
Th
I use zfs in a san. I have two Sun V440s running solaris 10 U2, which
have luns assigned to them from my Sun SE 3511. So far, it has worked
flawlessly.
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Dave,
Friday, December 15, 2006, 9:02:31 PM, you wrote:
DB> Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in
Hello Dave,
Friday, December 15, 2006, 9:02:31 PM, you wrote:
DB> Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
DB> SAN environment? What will and will not work?
ZFS is "just" a filesystem with "just" an integrated volume manager.
Ok, it's more than that.
The point is that if any oth
Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the information I have been gathering
it doesn't appear that ZFS was intended to operate
in a SAN environment.
What information? ZFS works on a SAN just as
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the information I have been gathering
it doesn't appear that ZFS was intended to operate
in a SAN environment.
Thanks,
Dave
___
zfs-di
36 matches
Mail list logo
