                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of alex.blew...@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.176;
References: <CAL+Y1nsZ+Bdyj=kAi0Now=pV7dXNzTMY6rRuWpU3ASf9BT9...@mail.gmail.com> <893BB476-293C-4945-838A-831601E86...@gmail.com> <DFF63D8A-775C-436D-9A0B-C2749812B...@designlifecycle.com> <71BA3680-3B18-463D-AB7A-1FE745D4F...@gmail.com> <B7410629-63BB-462A-950B-E535CAA00...@designlifecycle.com> <A57ECAED-3D35-4EAE-B09D-DC666B789...@designlifecycle.com>
In-Reply-To: <A57ECAED-3D35-4EAE-B09D-DC666B789...@designlifecycle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <0BEC4DDC-8982-4719-86FA-0FDF4E3DE...@gmail.com>
Cc: "zfs-macos@googlegroups.com" <zfs-macos@googlegroups.com>
From: Alex Blewitt <alex.blew...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [zfs-macos] repeated kernel panics on lion, 7.41 & also 7.42
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 22:32:12 +0100
To: "zfs-macos@googlegroups.com" <zfs-macos@googlegroups.com>

I'm sorry, I was unable to apply your patch as it was formatted in "random l=
inked e-mail blog post" format. Please feel free to submit a tested pull req=
uest against the GitHub repository since you clearly know what the fix shoul=
d be.=20

Alex

Sent from my iPhone 4S

On 10 Sep 2012, at 22:24, Alex Bowden <a...@designlifecycle.com> wrote:

> try
>=20
> http://prefetch.net/blog/index.php/2008/03/01/configuring-zfs-to-gracefull=
y-deal-with-failures/
>=20
>=20
> On 10 Sep 2012, at 22:15, Alex Bowden <a...@designlifecycle.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> You don't need onnv_120,  you just need CR #6322646 from about October 20=
07, about 2 years before onnv_120
>>=20
>> Personally I'm perfectly happy running an up to date ZFS under Solaris un=
der VMware Fusion under MacOS 10.8 where I import the file system back.
>>=20
>> I just look in every couple of years to see if zfs-macos shows any sign o=
f ever making progress. =20
>>=20
>> Perhaps I should leave it longer this time?
>>=20
>>    Alex
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:06, Alex Blewitt <alex.blew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 10 Sep 2012, at 12:28, Alex Bowden wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> So what if its a drive issue?
>>>>=20
>>>> If he's not booted of it, and not paging to it, then failure of a singl=
e disk zfs filesystem may clearly cause loss of data (though hopefully not i=
f its a power glitch),  but it should not cause a kernel panic.  That is an a=
bsurd bug to pass off as if it were some sort of obviously absurd user expec=
tation or error.
>>>>=20
>>>> And for what it's worth that does not cause ZFS on Solaris to panic.
>>>=20
>>> The original Solaris implementation used to panic as well. It wasn't unt=
il build onnv_120 that the 'failmode' property was introduced, which include=
d the option to not panic upon the sign of failure (and instead, say, switch=
 the ZFS pool to read-only).
>>>=20
>>> I look forward to your patch which takes us from onnv_74 to onnv_120. I'=
m sure it will be greatly received by everyone!
>>>=20
>>> Thanks,
>>>=20
>>> Alex
>>>=20
>>> --=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
>=20
>=20
>=20