> Trying to upgrade to snv_91 (same thing when I did snv_90), I get a
> very unhelpful error message. When I dig deeper, I grow concerned
> that I am hitting a stupid limit of zfs. Perhaps someone here can
> shed some light on whether this is a known issue that is being worked.
I've seen this issue myself in recent times and have ended up filing
2302 "beadm activate" fails to activate newly created, image-updated BE
In my particular case, my pool is a relatively small VMware instance
(16GB, I think) but even after removing all other BEs (besides the one
I ran the imnage-update from), I'm still unable to activate the new
BE.
> FWIW, I posted to zfs-discuss a while back
> (http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-June/048207.html)
> and got not a lot of useful help. This is a disconcerting trend with
> zfs-discuss - particularly as I have run across reproducible zfs
> related panics (unrelated to Indiana). I mention my concern with the
> helpfulness of zfs-discuss here because it is kinda important to the
> OpenSolaris strategy.
It may very well be a manifestation of the restrictions outlined in
6452872. That said, there is room here for better error reporting
since it wasn't clear to me that my clone was lacking the space in
order to move the snapshots.
dsc
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
