On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, James C. McPherson wrote: >>> >>> I don't understand what you mean by "Odd requirement to update >>> /etc/vfstab" >>> - when we turn on mpxio the device paths change, so any fs that's not >>> ZFS will require repointing, as it were. One of the issues I've come >> >> It was a design choice to change the device paths. There are other >> approaches which would not have necessitated device path changes. > > What would you have done instead?
I was not involved in the design analysis so I can not say what I would have done based on all factors considered. However, there was the alternative of renaming the proxied devices. I am not saying that Sun made a wrong decision with its approach. Renaming many devices is troublesome. Covering up the low-level devices would not have been correct either. >> There were no problems with the ST2540. The issues were with the SAS >> drives in the local backplane (Sun Ultra 40 M2). > > Bob, I actually do want to know the specifics. As I mentioned, > I'm the person who delivered the backport of those features. > That means that I need to followup on issues such as the one > you are alluding to. This happened to me back in February so I don't have specifics any more. It is worthwhile testing on a populated Sun Ultra 40 M2 or other systems using the same SAS controller. It seems likely that the problem I encountered is fixed by now since there are five or six Sun servers which use the same SAS controller. Bob _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
