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?
UFS will panic on EIO also. Most other file systems, too.
You can put UFS on top of SVM, but unless SVM is configured for
redundancy, it (UFS) would still panic in such situations. ZFS
doesn't bring anything new here, but I sense a change in expectations
that I can't quite reconcile.
-- richard
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
