On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Jacob Ritorto <jacob.rito...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote: > > > Also, I never said anything about setting it to panic. I'm not sure why > > you can't set it to continue while alerting you that a vdev has failed? > > > Ah, right, thanks for the reminder Tim! > > Now I'd asked about this some months ago, but didn't get an answer so > forgive me for asking again: What's the difference between wait and continue > in my scenario? Will this allow the one faulted pool to fully fail and > accept that it's broken, thereby allowing me to frob the iscsi initiator, > re-import the pool and restart the zone? That'd be exactly what I need. > > thx > jake > I'm not sure I've seen what your setup is. If it's raid-z on top of several iSCSI LUNs, losing one won't cause much of anything. The pool will be marked as degraded, but it will keep chugging along. When the lun comes back, it should resilver, and I'd suggest doing a scrub as well. If there's no redundancy, I'd imagine it depends on what data is on the LUN. If it's something with the core OS, I'd expect a panic. If it's just a directory with shares, I would expect the shares to go offline, but the system to continue functioning. You'd have to test to verify that though, I can't say for certain. -- --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
