Timh Bergström wrote: > 2008/10/10 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Timh Bergström wrote: >> >>> 2008/10/9 Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Miles Nordin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> catastrophically. If this is really the situation, then ZFS needs to >>>>> give the sysadmin a way to isolate and fix the problems >>>>> deterministically before filling the pool with data, not just blame >>>>> the sysadmin based on nebulous speculatory hindsight gremlins. >>>>> >>>>> And if it's NOT the case, the ZFS problems need to be acknowledged and >>>>> fixed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Can you provide any supportive evidence that ZFS is as fragile as you >>>> describe? >>>> >>>> >>> The hundreds of sysadmins seeing their pools go byebye after normal >>> operations in a production environment is evidence enough. And the >>> number of times people like Victor have saved our asses. >>> >>> >> Hundreds? Do you have evidence of this? >> > > One is one to many, I dont need evidence of hundreds - that is > hopefully an exaggeration. > >
Don't show up to a data fight without data :-/ Yes, we do track this information and guys like me analyze it. The ratio of installed base to problem reports for ZFS is quite high. When we see a trend, we adjust priorities to address it. This is just part of our overall quality program. Which brings me to the required mantra, if you don't file a bug or make a service call, the problem doesn't get tracked. Please make the effort so that we can prioritize the use of our limited resources. Posting a fine whine on this (or any) forum is not guaranteed to result in an entry in our problem tracking system -- someone has to put in the extra effort, or it will fall into the silent complainant category. Please help us to improve the quality of our systems, thanks. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
