From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 2 16:04:50 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FAF4E6; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 16:04:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from byshenknet@byshenk.net) Received: from portland1.byshenk.net (portland1.byshenk.net [69.168.54.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53571778; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 16:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from portland1.byshenk.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by portland1.byshenk.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r62FeCGu067205; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from byshenknet@portland1.byshenk.net) Received: (from byshenknet@localhost) by portland1.byshenk.net (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r62FeCso067203; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from byshenknet) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:40:12 -0700 From: Greg Byshenk To: freebsd-stable List Subject: Re: ZFS Panic after freebsd-update Message-ID: <20130702154012.GL1134@portland1.byshenk.net> References: <20130701154925.GA64899@icarus.home.lan> <20130701170422.GA65858@icarus.home.lan> <51D1C625.1030401@FreeBSD.org> <20130701185033.GB67450@icarus.home.lan> <51D26C5C.4000107@FreeBSD.org> <20130702075716.GA79876@icarus.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130702075716.GA79876@icarus.home.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on portland1.byshenk.net Cc: Jeremy Chadwick , Andriy Gapon X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:04:50 -0000 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