I can't see *any* part of 6560174 on bugs.opensolaris.org, which is somewhat
annoying as it was me that filed it.
Fow what it's worth though, ZFS on firewire seems to function reasonably well
in spite of the transport reject errors I mention in that bug report.
Pete.
Jeff Thompson wrote:
>
On 5 Jul 2007, at 20:33, Jeff Thompson wrote:
> Pete Bentley wrote:
>> I can't see *any* part of 6560174 on bugs.opensolaris.org, which
>> is somewhat annoying as it was me that filed it.
>
> Does anybody else know why bug reports are disappearing on
> bugs.ope
Jürgen Keil wrote:
>>> And 6560174 might be a duplicate of 6445725
>> I see what you mean. Unfortunately there does not
>> look to be a work-around.
>
> Nope, no work-around. This is a scsa1394 bug; it
> has some issues when it is used from interrupt context.
>
> I have some source code diffs,
Neal Pollack wrote:
> ICH-8 and ICH-9 are indeed supported and running Solaris Nevada.
> Here is the current status of ICH-9 support as of build 70, Solaris
> Express edition:
>
> - USB works
> - AHCI SATA disks work fine.
> - ATAPI over SATA for DVD drives is still being tested prior to integra
Mario Goebbels wrote:
> Heh, the last ever RAM problems I had was a broken 1MB memory stick on
> that wannabe 486 from Cyrix like over a decade ago. And I never test my
> machines for broken sticks :)
If you don't test your RAM, how are you sure you have no problems (unless you
exclusively use EC
Hi,
I have a Solaris 10u3/x86 box with a single mirrored zpool, patched with
10_Recommended as of mid-May and which has been running with no obvious
problems since that time until today.
Today processes accessing certain zfs files starting hanging (sleeping in an
unkillable state), which seems
