Re: [zfs-discuss] CR# 6574286, remove slog device

2009-05-21 Thread Peter Woodman
Well, it worked for me, at least. Note that this is a very limited recovery case- it only works if you have the GUID of the slog device from zpool.cache, which in the case of a fail-on-export and reimport might not be available. The original author of the fix seems to imply that you can use any siz

[zfs-discuss] Jeb Campbell's slog recovery

2009-04-26 Thread Peter Woodman
Hello- I've run into a problem with a slog device failing and a system failing to boot with the pool it failed in available. I'm attempting to recover it from another system, but now have the problem of being unable to import a pool with a missing slog. I've read Jeb Campbell's post about recoverin

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X 10.5.0 Leopard ships with a readonly ZFS

2007-10-26 Thread Peter Woodman
err, apologies, i'd like to retract my last comment - i failed reading comprehension. just read-only by default. On 10/26/07, Peter Woodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it would seem that the reason that it's been pulled is that it's > installed by default in the rel

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X 10.5.0 Leopard ships with a readonly ZFS

2007-10-26 Thread Peter Woodman
it would seem that the reason that it's been pulled is that it's installed by default in the release version (9A581) - just tested it here, and willikers, it works! On 10/26/07, Kugutsumen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > # zfs list > ZFS Readonly implemntation is loaded! > To download the full ZFS re

[zfs-discuss] odd behavior from zpool replace.

2007-10-13 Thread Peter Woodman
i've got a little zpool with a naughty raidz vdev that won't take a replacement that as far as i can tell should be adequate. a history: this could well be some bizarro edge case, as the pool doesn't have the cleanest lineage. initial creation happened on NexentaCP inside vmware in linux. i had gi