>>
>> no no .. its a "feature". :-P
>>
>> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a duck.
>>
>> a kernel panic that brings down a system is a bug. Plain and simple.
>
> I disagree (nit). A hardware fault can also cause a panic. Faults != bugs.
ha ha .. yeah. If the sysa
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Anton B. Rang wrote:
"INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes unavailable or
develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to protect your
data."
Is this the official, long-term stance? I don't think it is. I think this
is an interpretation of
On Dec 20, 2006, at 00:37, Anton B. Rang wrote:
"INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes
unavailable or
develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to
protect your data."
OK, I'm puzzled.
Am I the only one on this list who believes that a kernel panic,
inste
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Anton B. Rang wrote:
"INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes unavailable or
develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to protect your data."
OK, I'm puzzled.
Am I the only one on this list who believes that a kernel panic, instead of
EIO,
> Anton B. Rang wrote:
>>> "INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes unavailable or
>>> develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to protect your
>>> data."
>>>
>>
>> OK, I'm puzzled.
>>
>> Am I the only one on this list who believes that a kernel panic, instead
>> of
Anton B. Rang wrote:
"INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes unavailable or
develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to protect your data."
OK, I'm puzzled.
Am I the only one on this list who believes that a kernel panic, instead of
EIO, represents a bug?
