Are there benchmarks somewhere showing a RAID10 implemented on an LSI card
with, say, 128MB of cache being beaten in terms of performance by a similar
zraid configuration with no cache on the drive controller?
Somehow I don't think they exist. I'm all for data scrubbing, but this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darren,
Do you happen to have any links for this? I
have not seen anything
about NTFS and CAS/dedupe besides some of the third
party apps/services
that just use NTFS as their backing store.
Single Instance Storage is what Microsoft uses to
refer to
from the description here
http://www.djesys.com/vms/freevms/mentor/rms.html
so who cares here ?
RMS is not a filesystem, but more a CAS type of data
repository
Since David begins his description with the statement RMS stands for Record
Management Services. It is the underlying file
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 05:27:25 -0800, Anton B. Rang wrote:
: I was under the impression that real-time processes essentially trump all
: others, and I'm surprised by this behaviour; I had a dozen or so
RT-processes
: sat waiting for disc for about 20s.
: Process priorities on Solaris affect
from the description here
http://www.djesys.com/vms/freevms/mentor/rms.html
so who cares here ?
RMS is not a filesystem, but more a CAS type of data repository
On Dec 8, 2007 7:04 AM, Anton B. Rang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NOTHING anton listed takes the place of ZFS
That's not surprising,
Yet another prime example.
can you guess? wrote:
Please see below for an example.
Ah - I see that you'd rather be part of the problem than part of the
solution. Perhaps you're also one of those knuckle-draggers who believes
that a woman with the temerity to leave her home after
can you run a database on RMS?
I guess its not suited
we are already trying to get ride of a 15 years old filesystem called
wafl, and a 10 years old file system called Centera, so do you thing
we are going to consider a 35 years old filesystem now... computer
science made a lot of improvement
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 03:27:33PM -0800, Scott Laird wrote:
MAX3xxxRC (where xxx represents the size) and you'll be wearing a big
smile every time you work on a system so equipped.
Hmmm, on second glace, 36G versions of that seem to be going for $40.
Do you mean $140, or am I missing
http://www.itovernight.com/store/comersus_viewItem.asp
?idProduct=866720
Fly by night from the looks of it.
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/IToverNight
$140 looks like bottom dollar from anywhere reputable (which is more in line
with what I would expect).
Yet another prime example.
Ah - yet another brave denizen (and top-poster) who's more than happy to dish
it out but squeals for administrative protection when receiving a response in
kind.
The fact that your pleas seem to be going unanswered actually reflects rather
well on whoever is
can you run a database on RMS?
As well as you could on must Unix file systems. And you've been able to do so
for almost three decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and direct I/O
are relative newcomers in the Unix environment).
I guess its not suited
And you guess wrong: that's
can you guess? wrote:
can you run a database on RMS?
As well as you could on must Unix file systems. And you've been able to do
so for almost three decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and
direct I/O are relative newcomers in the Unix environment).
Funny, I remember
can you guess? wrote:
can you run a database on RMS?
As well as you could on must Unix file systems.
And you've been able to do so for almost three
decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and
direct I/O are relative newcomers in the Unix
environment).
nny, I
13 matches
Mail list logo
