> Tomas Ögren wrote:
> > On 18 September, 2007 - Gino sent me these 0,3K
> bytes:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >> upgrade to snv_60 or later if you care about your
> data :)
> >
> > If there are known serious data loss bug fixes that
> have gone into
> > snv60+, but not into s10u4, then I would like to
> te
Tomas Ögren wrote:
> On 18 September, 2007 - Gino sent me these 0,3K bytes:
>
>> Hello,
>> upgrade to snv_60 or later if you care about your data :)
>
> If there are known serious data loss bug fixes that have gone into
> snv60+, but not into s10u4, then I would like to tell Sun to "backport"
> t
On 18 September, 2007 - Gino sent me these 0,3K bytes:
> Hello,
> upgrade to snv_60 or later if you care about your data :)
If there are known serious data loss bug fixes that have gone into
snv60+, but not into s10u4, then I would like to tell Sun to "backport"
those into s10u4 if they care abou
Hello,
upgrade to snv_60 or later if you care about your data :)
Gino
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hi Matty,
From the stack I saw, that is 6454482.
But this defect has been marked as 'Not reproducible', I have no idea
about how to recover
from it, but looks like new update will not hit this issue.
Matty wrote:
> One of our Solaris 10 update 3 servers paniced today with the following error: