On Sep 15, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Dale Ghent wrote:
Question though... why is bug fix that can be a watershed for
performance be held back for so long? s10u9 won't be available for
at least 6 months from now, and with a huge environment, I try hard
not to live off of IDRs.
As someone who currently faces kernel panics with recent U7+ kernel
patches (on AMD64 and SPARC) related to PCI bus upset, I expect that
Sun will take the time to make sure that the implementation is as
good as it can be and is thoroughly tested before release.
Are you referring the the same testing that gained you this PCI panic
feature in s10u7?
Testing is a no-brainer, and I would expect that there already exists
some level of assurance that a CR fix is correct at the point of
putback.
But I've dealt with many bugs both very recently and long in the past
where a fix has existed in nevada for months, even a year, before I
got bit by the same bug in s10 and then had to go through the support
channels to A) convince whomever I'm talking to that, yes, I'm hitting
this bug, B) yes, there is a fix, and then C) pretty please can I have
an IDR
Just this week I'm wrapping up testing of a IDR which addresses a
e1000g hardware errata that was fixed in onnv earlier this year in
February. For something that addresses a hardware issue on a Intel
chipset used on shipping Sun servers, one would think that Sustaining
would be on the ball and get that integrated ASAP. But the current
mode of operation appears to be "no CR, no backport", which leaves us
customers needlessly running into bugs and then begging for their
fixes... or hearing the dreaded "oh that fix will be available two
updates from now." Not cool.
/dale
/dale
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
