>>
>> The question of why to have different storage pools has still not
>> been
>> satisfactorily addressed. Methinks people are still confusing
>> pools and
>> data sets.
>>
>
> Is it possible to create a pool called rootpool made up for example
> of mirror c1t0d0 c2t0d0
> then add 4 disks
provided 3310 cache does not induce silent block corruption when
writing to disks
s.
On 10/5/07, Vincent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I went ahead and loaded 10u4 on a pair of V210 units.
>
> I am going to set this nocacheflush option and cross my fingers and see how
> it goes.
>
> I have
Pawel,
Is this a problem with ZFS trying to open the device twice?
Richard,
Yes a scrub should fix the device. One of zfs' faetures is ease of
administration. It seems to defy logic that a scrub does not fix all devices,
if possible. Why make it any harder for the admin?
Cheers.
This me
Hi
What patch has obsoleted 122660-10?
run:
patchadd -p |grep 122660-10
Enda
Bruce Shaw wrote:
>> 122660-10 does not have any issues that I am aware of. It is only
>>
> obsolete, not withdrawn. Additionally, it appears that the circular
> patch dependency is by design if you read this BugI
On 30/09/2007, William Papolis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK,
>
> I guess using this ...
>
> set md:mirrored_root_flag=1
>
> for Solaris Volume Manager (SVM) is not supported and could cause problems.
>
> I guess it's back to my first idea ...
>
> With 2 disks, setup three SDR's (State Datab
Hi all,
I have been reading ZFS discussion for a while now and I'm planning a small
file server (to be used by only a few people). I'm fairly new to Solaris and
OpenSolaris, and I'm thinking of using Solaris 10 08/07.
I have a few questions I haven't been able to figure out yet, and would be
g
This one might be better in the help forum/list :)
You will probably want to use the latest SXDE for that instead of Solaris 10.
It is a recent well-tested SXCE which is much newer than Solaris 10. Depending
on how good the Super Project Indiana OpenSolaris Milestone 1 Turbo turns out
at the
Peter Schuller wrote:
>> Is there a specific reason why you need to do the caching at the DB
>> level instead of the file system? I'm really curious as i've got
>> conflicting data on why people do this. If i get more data on real
>> reasons on why we shouldn't cache at the file system, the
