Hi, I was wondering if anyone would know if this is just an accounting-type error with the recorded "version=" stored on disk, or if there are/could-be any deeper issues with an "upgraded" zpool? I created a pool under a Sol10_x86_u3 install (11/06?), and zdb correctly reported the pool as a "version=3" pool. I reinstalled the OS with a u4 (08/07), ran zpool grade, was told I successfully upgraded from version 3 to version 4, but zdb reported "version=3". I unmounted the zfs, remounted, and zdb still reported "version=3". I reran zpool upgrade, and was told there were no pools to upgrade. I blew away that pool, and created a new pool and zdb correctly reported "version=4". Perhaps I''m being pedantic, but the version thing on an upgraded pool bugged me ;-) Does anyone have any thoughts/experiences on other surprises that may be lying in wait on an "upgraded" zpool? Thanks, Paul
Enda O''Connor ( Sun Micro Systems Ireland)
2007-Sep-13 15:09 UTC
[zfs-discuss] zpool versioning
Paul Armor wrote:> Hi, > I was wondering if anyone would know if this is just an accounting-type > error with the recorded "version=" stored on disk, or if there > are/could-be any deeper issues with an "upgraded" zpool? > > I created a pool under a Sol10_x86_u3 install (11/06?), and zdb correctly > reported the pool as a "version=3" pool. I reinstalled the OS with a u4 > (08/07), ran zpool grade, was told I successfully upgraded from version 3 > to version 4, but zdb reported "version=3". I unmounted the zfs, > remounted, and zdb still reported "version=3". I reran zpool upgrade, and > was told there were no pools to upgrade. > > I blew away that pool, and created a new pool and zdb correctly reported > "version=4". > > Perhaps I''m being pedantic, but the version thing on an upgraded pool > bugged me ;-) > > Does anyone have any thoughts/experiences on other surprises that may be > lying in wait on an "upgraded" zpool? > > Thanks, > Paul > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discussHi Paul is it not zpool upgrade -a, but I could be wrong I seem to remember zpool upgrade does not actually upgrade unless you specify the -a. Enda
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Enda O''Connor ( Sun Micro Systems Ireland) wrote:> Paul Armor wrote: >> Hi, >> I was wondering if anyone would know if this is just an accounting-type >> error with the recorded "version=" stored on disk, or if there are/could-be >> any deeper issues with an "upgraded" zpool? >> >> I created a pool under a Sol10_x86_u3 install (11/06?), and zdb correctly >> reported the pool as a "version=3" pool. I reinstalled the OS with a u4 >> (08/07), ran zpool grade, was told I successfully upgraded from version 3 >> to version 4, but zdb reported "version=3". I unmounted the zfs, >> remounted, and zdb still reported "version=3". I reran zpool upgrade, and >> was told there were no pools to upgrade. >> >> I blew away that pool, and created a new pool and zdb correctly reported >> "version=4". >> >> Perhaps I''m being pedantic, but the version thing on an upgraded pool >> bugged me ;-) >> >> Does anyone have any thoughts/experiences on other surprises that may be >> lying in wait on an "upgraded" zpool? >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> _______________________________________________ > Hi Paul > is it not zpool upgrade -a, > but I could be wrong > > I seem to remember zpool upgrade does not actually upgrade unless you specify > the -a. > > EndaHi Enda, thanks... from the manpage, I thought ''upgrade -a" meant to upgrade all pools. Thanks, Paul