From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Feb 21 07:49:00 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD4D85F8;
 Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:49:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from cu01176b.smtpx.saremail.com (cu01176b.smtpx.saremail.com
 [195.16.151.151])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC911BF1;
 Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:49:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.16.2.2] (izaro.sarenet.es [192.148.167.11])
 by proxypop04.sare.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 680239DD7B7;
 Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:48:58 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Possible ZFS bug? Insufficient sanity checks
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es>
In-Reply-To: <1392943920.2273.85942093.30069072@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:48:55 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ABC8C997-F059-49CB-9B16-3778D3AF77EF@sarenet.es>
References: <BF2D310C-7B8F-413D-9D20-A887236C5913@sarenet.es>
 <1392943920.2273.85942093.30069072@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: Mark Felder <feld@freebsd.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:49:00 -0000


On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:52 AM, Mark Felder wrote:

> I'm curious: on both machines did the zpools share the same name?

No, not at all. I'm waiting for a couple of SAS cables to repeat the =
same test and verify that it's indeed what happened.

What I think so far is, ZFS was  happy to see that the physical disk was =
 the same one.=20







Borja.