On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 06:07:40PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote: > > And why would we want a pool imported on another host, or not marked > as belonging to this host, to show up as faulted? That seems an odd > use of the word. Unavailable, perhaps, but not faulted. >
That's FMA terminology, and besides wanting to stay within the same framework, I believe it is correct. If you have booted a machines which claims to be the owner of a pool, only to find that it has since been actively opened on another host, this is administrator misconfiguration. As such, the pool is faulted, and an FMA message explaining what has happened, along with a link to a more detailed knowledge article explaining how to fix it, will be generated. The term 'faulted' is specific FMA terminology, and carries with it many desired semantics (such as showing up in the FMA resource cache). Silently ignoring failure in this case is not an option. If you want this silent behavior, you should be using some combination of clustering software to provide higher level abstractions of ownership besides 'zpool.cache'. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
