I don't think its about assuming the admin is an idiot. It happened to
me in development and I didn't expect it...I hope I'm not an idiot.
Just observing the list, a fair amount of people don't expect it. The
likelihood you'll miss this one little bit of very important
information in the manual or man page is pretty high. So it would be
nice if an informational message appeared saying something like:
"INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes unavailable or
develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to protect
I definitely wouldn't require any sort of acknowledgment of this
message, such as requiring a "-f" flag to continue.
On 12/19/06, Robert Milkowski <rmilkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tuesday, December 19, 2006, 8:54:09 PM, you wrote:
>> > Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
>> > with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
>> why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
>> warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in redundancy decisions?
JJWW> Because if the host controller port goes flaky and starts introducing
JJWW> checksum errors at the block level (a lady a few weeks ago reported
JJWW> this) ZFS will kernel panic, and most users won't expect it. Users
JJWW> should be warned it seems to me to the real possibility of a kernel
JJWW> panic if they don't implement redundancy at the zpool level. Just my 2
I don't agree - do not assume sys admin is complete idiot.
Sure, lets create GUI and other 'inteligent' creators which are for
very beginner users with no understanding at all.
Maybe we need something like vxassist (zfsassist?)?
zfs-discuss mailing list