Douglas Denny wrote:
On 12/4/06, James C. McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this normal behavior for ZFS?
Yes. You have no redundancy (from ZFS' point of view at least),
so ZFS has no option except panicing in order to maintain the
integrity of your data.
This is interesting from a implementation point of view. Any singly
attached SAN connection that has a disconnect from its switch/backend
will cause the ZFS to panic, why would it not wait and see if the
device came back? Should all SAN connected ZFS pools have redundancy
built in with dual HBAs to dual SAN switches/controllers?
If you look into your /var/adm/messages file, you should see
more than a few seconds' worth of IO retries, indicating that
there was a delay before panicing while waiting for the device
to return.
Answering your second question, all ZFS pools should be configured
with redundancy from ZFS' point of view.
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer, system admin and troubleshooter
http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog
Find me on LinkedIn @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamescmcpherson
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
