Eric Schrock wrote: > There's really no way to recover from this, since we don't have device > removal. However, I'm suprised that no warning was given. There are at > least two things that should have happened: > > 1. zpool(1M) should have warned you that the redundancy level you were > attempting did not match that of your existing pool. This doesn't > apply if you already have a mixed level of redundancy. > > 2. zpool(1M) should have warned you that the device was in use as an > active spare and not let you continue. > > What bits were you running? >
snv_78, however the pool was created on snv_43 and hasn't yet been upgraded. Though, programatically, I can't see why there would be a difference in the way 'zpool' would handle the check. The big question is, if I'm stuck like the permanently, whats the potential risk? Could I potentially just fail that drive and leave it in a failed state? benr. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
