On 09/30/11 08:12 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 09/30/11 08:03 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Ian Collins wrote:
Slowing down replication is not a good move!
Do you prefer pool corruption? ;-)
Probably they fixed a dire bug and this is the cost of the fix.
Could be. I think
On Nov 12, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:15:31AM -0500, David Magda wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 2011, at 00:55, Richard Elling wrote:
>>
>>> Better than ?
>>> If the disks advertise 512 bytes, the only way around it is with a
>>> whitelist. I would
>>> be rather
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:15:31AM -0500, David Magda wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2011, at 00:55, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> > Better than ?
> > If the disks advertise 512 bytes, the only way around it is with a
> > whitelist. I would
> > be rather surprised if Oracle sells 4KB sector disks for Solaris sy
On Nov 12, 2011, at 00:55, Richard Elling wrote:
> Better than ?
> If the disks advertise 512 bytes, the only way around it is with a whitelist.
> I would
> be rather surprised if Oracle sells 4KB sector disks for Solaris systems…
Solaris 10. OpenSolaris.
But would it be surprising to use SANs
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:55:29PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 7:47 PM, David Magda wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:41, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:17:55PM -0400, John D Groenveld wrote:
> >>> Under both Solaris 10 and Solaris 11x, I recei