On Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 00:05:17 CEST, Nils Goroll wrote:
> Matthias,
>
> that does not answer my question.
>
> The question is: Why can't I decide that I consciously want to destroy the
> (two way)
> mirror (and, yes, do away with any redundancy).
>
Hi,
this pool does not have any re
Matthias,
that does not answer my question.
The question is: Why can't I decide that I consciously want to destroy the (two
way)
mirror (and, yes, do away with any redundancy).
Nils
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 02:14:02PM -0700, Eric Schrock wrote:
> The fact that it's DEGRADED and not FAULTED indicates that it thinks the
> DTL (dirty time logs) for the two sides of the mirrors overlap in some
> way, so detaching it would result in loss of data. In the process of
> doing this, it
The fact that it's DEGRADED and not FAULTED indicates that it thinks the
DTL (dirty time logs) for the two sides of the mirrors overlap in some
way, so detaching it would result in loss of data. In the process of
doing this, it seems the error message got lost, and you ended up with
something comp
2008/8/15 Nils Goroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I thought that this question must have been answered already, but I have
> not found any explanations. I'm sorry in advance if this is redundant, but:
>
> Why exactly doesn't ZFS let me detach a device from a degraded mirror?
>
> haggis:~# zpool
Hi,
I thought that this question must have been answered already, but I have
not found any explanations. I'm sorry in advance if this is redundant, but:
Why exactly doesn't ZFS let me detach a device from a degraded mirror?
haggis:~# zpool status
pool: rmirror
state: DEGRADED
status: One or
