On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Russel<no-re...@opensolaris.org> wrote: > Yes you'll find my name all over VB at the moment, but I have found it to be > stable > (don't install the addons disk for solaris!!, use 3.0.2, and for me > winXP32bit and > OpenSolaris 2009.6 has been rock solid, it was (seems) to be opensolaris > failed > with extract_boot_list doesn't belong to 101, but noone on opensol, seems > interested about it as other have reported it to, prob a rare issue. > > But yer, I hope Vicktor or someone will take a look. My worry is that if we > can't recover from this, which a number of people (in variuos forms) have > come accross zfs may be introuble. We had this happen at work about 18 months > ago > lost all the data (20TB)(didn't know about zdb nor did sun support) so we > have start > to back away, but I though since jan 2009 patches things were meant to be > alot better, esp with sun using it in there storage servers now.... > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
No offense, but you trusted 10TB of important data, running in OpenSolaris from inside Virtualbox (not stable) on top of Windows XP (arguably not stable, especially for production) on probably consumer grade hardware with unknown support for any of the above products? I'd like to say this was an unfortunate circumstance, but there are many levels of fail here, and to blame ZFS seems misplaced, and the subject on this thread especially inflammatory. -- Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
