Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:03:19 -0400 From: Chris Forgeron <cforgeron@acsi.ca> To: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: ZFS - hot spares : automatic or not? Message-ID: <BEBC15BA440AB24484C067A3A9D38D7E0149F32D3486@server7.acsi.ca> In-Reply-To: <4D2E4C61.80407@acm.poly.edu> References: <4D228F41.7040403@langille.org> <4D23504D.8060103@libeljournal.com> <4D2BD0A7.9060003@langille.org> <4D2C810E.2070007@libeljournal.com> <BEBC15BA440AB24484C067A3A9D38D7E0149F32D3484@server7.acsi.ca> <4D2E4C61.80407@acm.poly.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think we'd be happy with whatever solution someone was kind enough to donate the time towards. Although, stripping the Solaris FMD stuff down to just the ZFS parts would help keep Solaris/FreeBSD a bit closer in their ZFS implementations, which is of arguable importance, but I do like standardization. Eventually porting more of the FMD may be really useful, Solaris has a lot of very handy things in it that impress me. ..then again I'm not volunteering the time to do it, so I don't have much say. :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Boris Kochergin Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:51 PM To: Chris Forgeron Cc: freebsd-stable Subject: Re: ZFS - hot spares : automatic or not? >After a cursory glance at their fault-management infrastructure, I >noticed that it also deals with other kinds of stuff like CPU and memory >problems, which might make a port painful or impractical. Would the >people with custom hot-spare scripts, or nothing automated at all, be >content if the sysutils/geomWatch program grew support for hot spares in >a future version? I already became somewhat familiar with the userland >ZFS API when I added ZFS support to it. > >-Boris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BEBC15BA440AB24484C067A3A9D38D7E0149F32D3486>