I'm sure people can get around the problem by rebooting or rescanning the drives somehow. This is really odd that Proxmox with zfsonlinux doesn't do the same. Strangely, every other recent distribution that I have used with the Linux Kernel uses UUID numbers for referencing drives. I commend Proxmox for using ZFS and for opening my eyes to the vital importance of ZFS on Linux. I've been doing Linux sysamin work for over 20 years, but am now just getting into using ZFS thanks to Proxmox. Am I not correct about this?Īlso, it's odd to me about creating additional pools, because it seems that one has to specify all the devices attached, does this mean that when one brings in a new drive that all the zpool create commands need to be re addressed to the new device names? I could see this as a downside to the device-by-id approach. Adding it to a zpool create, wouldn't be ideal to use an sde designation because on the next reboot, sde won't exist. If you remove drive3 and insert a new Drive 5 I think that it would be recognized as sde. One test would be to shut down a test server and re-arrange the drives to a different sequence and see if it boots up. It would be best to have drives ordered by disk-by-id. Rebooting is not an option in drive maintenance. I'm seeing allot of fud on the net about replacements of drives down the road that are recognized as different drive letters. Could the installer be changed so that it uses disk-by-id instead of /dev/sda type identifiers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |