I have a 5-bay eSATA box (a Sans Digital TR5M-BP) with an existing ZFS pool that's been run from an old homebrew AMD Phenom II machine running Solaris 11.3. I would like to access the ZFS pool from a Solaris VBox instance and retire the old box.
I have a Windows 10 host (Dell XPS 8930) with a Mediasonic ProBox Card HP1-SS3 eSATA card and the ASMedia 3.3.3 eSATA driver. It appears to work, but it's not super trustworthy - 3.3.2 rendered Windows 10 unbootable.
I created raw disk vmdks with a series of commands like this (run as admin, and I have to run VBox as admin as well):
VBoxManage internalcommands createrawvmdk -filename "C:\Users\rthur\VirtualBox VMs\sol-11_4-vbox\z1.vmdk" -rawdisk \\.\PhysicalDrive2
Then I added a SATA controller and added these vmdks to the controller in my Solaris 11.4 Vbox config. 'format' saw the disks, and 'zpool import' saw the pool. And 'zpool import <pool>' worked

Then I got cocky. I ran a 'zpool scrub', which worked for a few minutes, but then hit an I/O error (sorry, details lost) - Windows had detected a problem, and the Solaris guest lost access to three of the five drives. It looked dire for a while there. I had to power down the Solaris Vbox and reboot Windows 10 to get the drives back online, and then found that the guest had lost a drive because Windows had renumbered the eSATA drives. I edited the five vmdks to use the correct numbers, and I am back to having a full pool again.
Having I/O errors makes me nervous, and I am not sure how to track this down. Windows seems to have raised the alarm - what can I look at on Windows to find out more? I can imagine there could be issues in the eSATA card+driver, and might try to find a Silicon Image-based card which might be more trustworthy. But I also wonder if I could improve things by setting caching policy for those drives so that Windows is further out of the way for the eSATA drives. Does anyone know of anything in that direction that might help? Finally, I have a USB 3.0 4-bay box which I am thinking of deploying a new pool on - any thoughts on whether that might be more successful?
Thanks,
Rob T