Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:40:12 -0700 From: Greg Byshenk <freebsd@byshenk.net> To: freebsd-stable List <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org>, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ZFS Panic after freebsd-update Message-ID: <20130702154012.GL1134@portland1.byshenk.net> In-Reply-To: <20130702075716.GA79876@icarus.home.lan> References: <CA%2B30O_P7=3FanLaxjHQ71grqWLfTxNJXb6kP5-eWYWEYZFoVtw@mail.gmail.com> <20130701154925.GA64899@icarus.home.lan> <C13462A8-88DC-4EEF-9356-CF655B8EA8E8@vt.edu> <20130701170422.GA65858@icarus.home.lan> <51D1C625.1030401@FreeBSD.org> <20130701185033.GB67450@icarus.home.lan> <51D26C5C.4000107@FreeBSD.org> <20130702075716.GA79876@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:57:16AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > But in the OP's case, the situation sounds dire given the limitations -- > limitations that someone (apparently not him) chose, which greatly > hinder debugging/troubleshooting. Had a heterogeneous setup been > chosen, the debugging/troubleshooting pains are less (IMO). When I see > this, it makes me step back and ponder the decisions that lead to the > ZFS-only setup. As an observer (though one who has used ZFS for some time, now), I might suggest that this can at least -seem- like FUD about ZFS because the "limitations" don't necessarily have anything to do with ZFS. That is, a situation in which one cannot recover, nor even effectively troubleshoot, if there is a problem, will be a "dire" one, regardless of what the problem might be or where its source might lie. -- greg byshenk - gbyshenk@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL - Portland, OR USA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130702154012.GL1134>