zfs discuss - Sep 2007 - zpool versioning

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

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
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
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.

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.
>
> Enda
Hi Enda,
thanks... from the manpage, I thought ''upgrade -a" meant to
upgrade all
pools.

Thanks,
Paul