I was not in front of the machine, I had remote hands working with me, so I appologize in advance for any lack of detail I'm about to give.
The server in question is running snv_81 booting ZFS Root using Tim's scripts to "convert" it over to ZFS Root. My server in colo stopped responding. I had a screen session open and I could switch between screen windows and create new windows but I could not run any commands. I also could not log into the box. The hands on person saw this on the console (transcribed from a video console): SYNCHRONIZE CACHE command failed (5) scsi: WARNING: /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1095,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 (sd1) sd1 is one of two SATA disks connected to the machine via a SiL3124 controller. I had the remote hands pull sd1 and reboot the machine. It came right up and has been running fine since. Lacking its mirrored disks, however. Due to other issues I've had with this box (If you think you can get away with running ZFS on a 32-bit machine, you are mistaken) I'm looking to replace it anyway. What concerns me is that a single disk having gone bad like that can take out the whole machine. This is not what I would consider an ideal or acceptable setup for a machine that is in colo that doesn't have 24x7 onsite support. What was to blame for this disk failure causing my machine to become unresponsive? Was it the SiL3124? Is it something else? Is this what I should expect from SATA? I ask all these questions as I want to make sure that if this is indeed connected to the use of a SATA controller, or the use of a specific SATA controller that I certainly avoid that with this next machine. I've got a very slim budget on this, and based on that I found what looks like a pretty nice little server that is in my budget. It's an ASUS RS161-E2/PA2 which is based on the nForce Professional 2200, which from what I can tell is what the Ultra 40 is based on, so I would expect it to pretty much just work. Will the nv_sata driver behave in a more sane fashion in a case like what I've just gone through? If this is a shortcoming of SATA, does anyone have any recommendations on a not too expensive setup based on a SAS controller? As much as I would like this thing to do a great job in the performance arena, stability is definitely higher on the list of what's really important to me. Thanks, -brian -- "Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix." -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
