Howdy Matt, thanks for the response. But I dunno man... I think I disagree... I'm kinda of the opinion that regardless of what happens to hardware, an OS should be able to work around it, if it's possible. If a sysadmin wants to yank a hard drive out of a motherboard (despite the risk of damage to the drive and board), then no OS in the world is going to stop him, so instead of the sysadmin trying to work around the OS, shouldn't the OS instead try to work around the sysadmin?
I mean, as great of an OS as it is, Solaris can't possibly hope to stop me from doing anything I want to do... so when it assumes that something's gone seriously wrong (which yanking a disk drive would hopefully cause it to assume), instead of just freezing up and becoming totally useless, why not do something useful like eject the disk from it's memory, degrade the array, send out an e-mail to a designated sysadmin, and then keep on chugging along? Or, for a greater level of control, why not just read from some configuration set by the sysadmin, and then decide to either do the above or shut down entirely, as per the wishes of the sysadmin? Anything would be better than just going into a catatonic state in less than five seconds. Which is exactly what Linux, BSD, and even Windows _don't_ do, and why their continual operation even under such failures wouldn't be considered a bug. When I yank a drive in a RAID5 array - any drive, be it IDE, SATA, USB, or Firewire - in OpenSuSE or RedHat, the kernel will immediately notice it's absence, and inform lvm and mdadm (the software responsible for keeping the RAID array together). mdadm will then degrade the array, and consult whatever instructions root gave it when the sysadmin was configuring the array. If the sysadmin waned the array to "stay up as long as it could," then it would continue to do that. If root wanted the array to be "brought down after any sort of drive failure," then the array would be unmounted. If root wanted to "power the machine down," then the machine will dutifully turn off. Shouldn't OpenSolaris do the same thing? And as for James not being a jerk because he hates me, does that mean he's just always like that? lol, it's alright: lets not try to explain or excuse trollish behavior, and instead just call it out and expose it for what it is, and then be done with it. I certainly am. Anyways, thanks for the input Matt. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
