Any new filesystems that you create, in addition to every zpool's default root filesystem, will still show up in Finder as being additional instances of the zpool's own name. This is a purely cosmetic bug and can be ignored. You can create as many ZFSes as you want on each zpool, and name them whatever you want, and use them however you want. They'll just appear as a bunch of redundantly-named icons on the Finder sidebar.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-macos" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to zfs-macos+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
I saw the same problem when moving to Lion. After trying the patch you mention and a couple of other things, the solution I came up with was to use Samba on my Mac and disable the default file sharing. I never could get printer sharing to work correctly so I have to sneaker-net pdfs from my Win7 boxes to my Mac server for printing.-X
--
Does that mean all is again perfect in the universe?
Try directly. The goal is too try and find what is dropping the ball.
… With Apples stuff, my mounts would randomly drop especially if it was not actively being used. …
Ok that's cool. I reported this thread on the github site for that injected library project, just in case. This is kind of important! It's another example of Apple increasing the NIH (not invented here) factor, and walling out alternatives. They do a lot of inclusive stuff, and they do some noninclusive stuff. So we have to be aware and unify our responses.
At the moment it is "no news is good news". I have a launchd job that touches a file on every shared filesystem every 30 min, and thus far I have seen no sign of AFP forgetting the shares. However, the problem has gone a couple of weeks before recurring before now, so we have no so much proof as the absence of disproof.
Ok that's cool. I reported this thread on the github site for that injected library project, just in case. This is kind of important! It's another example of Apple increasing the NIH (not invented here) factor, and walling out alternatives. They do a lot of inclusive stuff, and they do some noninclusive stuff. So we have to be aware and unify our responses.
As much as you can bear to detail as I run a lot of systems so replication should be doable and thus a proper solution.