Hi Robert
>
> Well, the real question is how 6140 reacts to SYNC_NV
> - probably it
> doesn't care...
>
That was our conclusion also, but its really hard to connect the dots...
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
z
Hello Bill,
Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 12:37:38 AM, you wrote:
BS> I'm pretty sure that this bug is fixed in Solaris 10U5, patch
BS> 127127-11 and 127128-11 (note: 6462690 sd driver should set
BS> SYNC_NV bit when issuing SYNCHRONIZE CACHE to SBC-2 devices).
BS> However, a test system with new 6140
I'm pretty sure that this bug is fixed in Solaris 10U5, patch 127127-11 and
127128-11 (note: 6462690 sd driver should set SYNC_NV bit when issuing
SYNCHRONIZE CACHE to SBC-2 devices). However, a test system with new 6140
arrays still seems to be suffering from lots of cache flushes. This is veri
