search for: andrewee2

I believe concerns like this should go to you? Bev. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [zfs-discuss] zfs discussion forum bug Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:03:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew <andrewee2@yahoo.com> To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org I started three new threads recently, "Feature proposal: differential pools" "Feature proposal: trashcan via auto-snapshot with every txg commit" "Flushing synchronous writes to mirrors" Matthew Ahrens and Henk Langeveld...

Line 71 of http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/sys/dsl_dataset.h#dsl_dataset_phys says uint64_t ds_pad[8]; /* pad out to 256 bytes for good measure */ But that padding actually increases dsl_dataset_phys to 320 bytes total; the structure is already 256 bytes without the padding. This message posted from opensolaris.org

I started three new threads recently, "Feature proposal: differential pools" "Feature proposal: trashcan via auto-snapshot with every txg commit" "Flushing synchronous writes to mirrors" Matthew Ahrens and Henk Langeveld both replied to my first thread by sending their messages to both me and to zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org, and Matt did likewise for my second

IIRC, uncorrectable bitrot even in a nonessential file detected by ZFS used to cause a kernel panic. Bug ID 4924238 was closed with the claim that bitrot-induced panics is not a bug, but the description did mention an open bug ID 4879357, which suggests that it''s considered a bug after all. Can somebody clarify the intended behavior? For example, if I''m running Solaris in a VM,