I disagree Bob, I think this is a very different function to that which FMA provides.
As far as I know, FMA doesn't have access to the big picture of pool configuration that ZFS has, so why shouldn't ZFS use that information to increase the reliability of the pool while still using FMA to handle device failures? The flip side of the argument is that ZFS already checks the data returned by the hardware. You might as well say that FMA should deal with that too since it's responsible for all hardware failures. The role of ZFS is to manage the pool, availability should be part and parcel of that. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Ross Smith wrote: >> >> Good to hear there's work going on to address this. >> >> What did you guys think to my idea of ZFS supporting a "waiting for a >> response" status for disks as an interim solution that allows the pool >> to continue operation while it's waiting for FMA or the driver to >> fault the drive? > > A stable and sane system never comes with "two brains". It is wrong to put > this sort of logic into ZFS when ZFS is already depending on FMA to make the > decisions and Solaris already has an infrastructure to handle faults. The > more appropriate solution is that this feature should be in FMA. > > Bob > ====================================== > Bob Friesenhahn > [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ > > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
