zfs discuss - Feb 2011 - Drive id confusion

Solaris and/or ZFS are badly confused about drive IDs.  The "c5t0d0" 
names are very far removed from the real world, and possibly they''ve 
gotten screwed up somehow.  Is devfsadm supposed to fix those, or does 
it only delete excess?

Reason I believe it''s confused:

zpool status shows mirror-0 on c9t3d0, c9t2d0, and c9t5d0.  But format 
shows the one remaining Seagate 400GB drive at c5t0d0 (my initial pool 
was two of those; I replaced one with a Samsung 1TB earlier today).  Now 
the mirror with three drives in is my very first mirror, which has to 
have the one remaining Seagate drive in it (given that I removed one 
Seagate drive; otherwise I could be confused about order of creation vs. 
mirror numbering).

I''m thinking either Solaris'' appalling mess of device files is
somehow
scrod, or else ZFS is confused in its reporting (perhaps because of 
cache file contents?).  Is there anything I can do about either of 
these?  Does devfsadm really create the apporpirate /dev/dsk and etc. 
files based on what''s present?  Would deleting the cache file while the
pool is exported, and then searching for and importing the pool, help?

How worried should I be?  (I''ve got current backups).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 6 Feb 2011, at 03:14, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> I''m thinking either Solaris'' appalling mess of device
files is somehow scrod, or else ZFS is confused in its reporting (perhaps
because of cache file contents?).  Is there anything I can do about either of
these?  Does devfsadm really create the apporpirate /dev/dsk and etc. files
based on what''s present?
Is reviewing the source code to devfsadm helpful? I bet it hasn''t
changed much from:

<http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/devfsadm/>

Chris