[PC-BSD Testing] Panic from ZFS
victoredwardocallaghan at gmail.com
Fri Oct 24 09:17:49 PDT 2008
Although I would not regards the ZFS port as totally unstable/unusable
but there are min requirements that should be put in place to protect
people/users from data loss.
For a production version, not putting these restricts in place if it
is a known is some what ignorant.
You and I may find it fun, but when someone loses data after a few
months of "oh but it was running fine" is no so fun for them. Are we
not aiming to be more stable then Linux or are we trying to play the
kernel panic game?
Bill; Try filling that zpool up some more then run a scrub, the
following _may_ happen, your whole zpool will be corrupted with a nice
kernel panic else just a kernel panic with a unbootable system.
ZFS in FreeBSD is no where near as stable as it is in OpenSolaris.
Just put the restrictions into place. I am giving you informed advice
here (I'm from the OpenSolaris community as well btw).
This will be the last warning.
2008/10/25 Rod Clark <sc at sdf.lonestar.org>:
> Edward O'Callaghan wrote:
>> My point was that you could suffer complete data corruption !
>> I know about the message as I asked for it to be put there, remember ;)
>> I really do think it should be disabled on systems where it should not
>> be running on until you are using FreeBSD 8 with the update to version
>> 11. That is, that I can now confirm that it does indeed resolve the
>> memory issue.
> In light of this and other such issues, have you given any
> thought to separating out the "play" aspects, as you put it, of
> v7 now that it's been released? In other words, create a sandbox
> v7 Unstable tree, full of all the experimental stuff that
> everyone hopes will mature Real Soon Now. And a PC-BSD 7 Stable
> tree that would include nothing but the most solid and
> trustworthy things.
> Yes, it's more work. But ideally nothing should ever be moved
> into the Stable tree until it's really safe for people's
> grandmothers and accountants to trust in every respect, to
> always provide the most reliable working environment.
> You and many other developers represent the braver, more techie
> "Hey, it's fun, this is a great sandbox!" faction. That's fine,
> and it's essential, and as soon as I have a spare PC to give to
> it, I'd like to run the newest version too. But as far as I can
> see, v7 remains a dual purpose evil-twin Unstable/Stable
> version, and the end user has to sort out both parts of it for
> Since I'm down a fried PC at the moment, I'm temporarily part of
> the faction who actually really needs to depend on your OS. And
> as an old fogey I also don't have as much detailed understanding
> as some others here do, in order to separate out every last
> playtime sandox element of it for myself as I go.
> This might not be possible or desirable right now because of a
> lack of people and time to do it, but I hope it becomes a
> subject of discussion in the fairly near future.
> Rod Clark
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
All Documents adhered to the ISO/IEC 26300 standard file format for
electronic office documents, such as spreadsheets, charts,
presentations and word processing documents from this email address.
The author does not take responsibility of the recipients inability to
read international standards and who use proprietary products such as
More information about the Testing