> Victor Engle wrote: > > Roshan, > > > > As far as I know, there is no problem at all with > using SAN storage > > with ZFS and it does look like you were having an > underlying problem > > with either powerpath or the array. > > Correct. A write failed. > > > The best practices guide on opensolaris does > recommend replicated > > pools even if your backend storage is redundant. > There are at least 2 > > good reasons for that. ZFS needs a replica for the > self healing > > feature to work. Also there is no fsck like tool > for ZFS so it is a > > good idea to make sure self healing can work. > > Yes, currently ZFS on Solaris will panic if a > non-redundant write fails. > This is known and being worked on, but there really > isn't a good solution > if a write fails, unless you have some ZFS-level > redundancy.
Why not? If O_DSYNC applies, a write() can still fail with EIO, right? And if O_DSYNC does not apply, an app could not assume that the written data was on stable storage anyway. Or the write() can just block until the problem is corrected (if correctable) or the system is rebooted. In any case, IMO there ought to be some sort of consistent behavior possible short of a panic. I've seen UFS based systems stay up even with their disks incommunicado for awhile, although they were hardly useful like that except insofar as activity strictly involving reading already cached pages was involved. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
