I wrote:
> Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 10:28 -0700, Jürgen Keil wrote:
> > > > I ran a scrub on a root pool after upgrading to snv_94, and got
> > > > checksum errors:
> > >
> > > Hmm, after reading this, I started a zpool scrub on my mirrored pool,
> > > on a system that is
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 10:28 -0700, Jürgen Keil wrote:
> > > I ran a scrub on a root pool after upgrading to snv_94, and got checksum
> > > errors:
> >
> > Hmm, after reading this, I started a zpool scrub on my mirrored pool,
> > on a system that is running post snv_94 bi
Rustam wrote:
> I'm living with this error for almost 4 months and probably have record
> number of checksum errors:
> # zpool status -xv
> pool: box5
...
> errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the
> following files:
>
> box5:<0x0>
>
> I've Sol 10 U5 though.
I suspect that
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 10:28 -0700, Jürgen Keil wrote:
> > > I ran a scrub on a root pool after upgrading to snv_94, and got checksum
> > > errors:
> >
> > Hmm, after reading this, I started a zpool scrub on my mirrored pool,
> > on a system that is running post snv_94 b
Miles Nordin wrote:
> "jk" == Jürgen Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> jk> And a zpool scrub under snv_85 doesn't find checksum errors, either.
> how about a second scrub with snv_94? are the checksum errors gone
> the second time around?
Nope.
I've now seen this problem on 4 zpools on three
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:26:16 -0700
Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> once is accident. twice is coincidence. three times is enemy
> action :-)
I have no access to b94 yet, but as it is, it probably is better to
skip this one when it comes out then.
--
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG k
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 10:28 -0700, Jürgen Keil wrote:
> > I ran a scrub on a root pool after upgrading to snv_94, and got checksum
> > errors:
>
> Hmm, after reading this, I started a zpool scrub on my mirrored pool,
> on a system that is running post snv_94 bits: It also found checksum errors
> "jk" == Jürgen Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jk> And a zpool scrub under snv_85 doesn't find checksum errors,
jk> either.
how about a second scrub with snv_94? are the checksum errors gone
the second time around?
I get checksum errors counted all the time when it is really just
I'm living with this error for almost 4 months and probably have record
number of checksum errors:
core# zpool status -xv
pool: box5
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
corruption. Applications may be affected.
action: Restore the file in
> > I ran a scrub on a root pool after upgrading to snv_94, and got checksum
> > errors:
>
> Hmm, after reading this, I started a zpool scrub on my mirrored pool,
> on a system that is running post snv_94 bits: It also found checksum errors
...
> OTOH, trying to verify checksums with zdb -c did
> I ran a scrub on a root pool after upgrading to snv_94, and got checksum
> errors:
Hmm, after reading this, I started a zpool scrub on my mirrored pool,
on a system that is running post snv_94 bits: It also found checksum errors
# zpool status files
pool: files
state: DEGRADED
status: One
I ran a scrub on a root pool after upgrading to snv_94, and got checksum
errors:
pool: r00t
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An
attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are
unaffected.
action: Determine if the device needs to
12 matches
Mail list logo
