Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:21:19 -0400 From: "Chad J. Milios" <milios@ccsys.com> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS 9.2/9.3 oh so broken... Message-ID: <B78485F0-8F51-4A6D-B548-0D5FF6623454@ccsys.com> In-Reply-To: <55FCB3A3.3000801@multiplay.co.uk> References: <55FC91EA.8000605@sorbs.net> <55FCB3A3.3000801@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 9.x is really quite old I'd strongly advise you move to 10.2 as it include= s a lot of fixes and enhancements to many areas including ZFS. 9.3 isn't that old and as far as I'm concerned 10.x is still today unfortuna= tely causing more problems than it's fixed. That's just my opinion though. I= 'm an old coot with a fear of the cutting edge. I'll be bringing up the rear= clutching onto my legacy OS, thank you very much. Don't push me. "Get off m= y lawn." I'm not totally alone in this sentiment, am I? I haven't had a single issue to report with online replacement and resilveri= ng of drives on 9.0-9.3 and I've probably swapped about 20 failed drives usi= ng ZFS across 9.x versions. Yes, I've had a second drive fail while resilver= ing a disk in a raidz2. I haven't used any hardware RAID controllers in conj= unction with FreeBSD for about 5 years now and at first glance it looked to m= e like the OP might have been. (Sorry I didn't look at it in detail, I'm on m= y phone and pastedumps hurt my eyes.) Sorry to spam the list, I realize this is not the place for either topic.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B78485F0-8F51-4A6D-B548-0D5FF6623454>