- Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au skrev:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:02:42AM -0700, Chris Du wrote:
SAS: full duplex
SATA: half duplex
SAS: dual port
SATA: single port (some enterprise SATA has dual port)
SAS: 2 active channel - 2 concurrent write, or 2 read, or 1 write
and
On Mon, April 26, 2010 17:21, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Also, if you've got all those disks in an array, and they're MTBF is ...
let's say 25,000 hours ... then 3 yrs later when they begin to fail, they
have a tendency to all fail around the same time, which increases the
probability of
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Hey, you know what might be helpful? Being able to add redundancy to a
raid vdev. Being able to go from RAIDZ2 to RAIDZ3 by adding another drive
of suitable size. Also being able to go the other way. This lets you do
the trick of temporarily
On Tue, April 27, 2010 10:38, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Hey, you know what might be helpful? Being able to add redundancy to a
raid vdev. Being able to go from RAIDZ2 to RAIDZ3 by adding another
drive
of suitable size. Also being able to go the
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I don't think I understand your scenario here. The docs online at
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gazgd?a=view describe uses of
zpool replace that DO run the array degraded for a while, and don't seem
to mention any other.
Could you be
On Tue, April 27, 2010 11:17, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I don't think I understand your scenario here. The docs online at
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gazgd?a=view describe uses
of
zpool replace that DO run the array degraded for a
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I don't have a RAIDZ group, but trying this while there's significant load
on the group, it should be easy to see if there's traffic on the old drive
after the resilver starts. If there is, that would seem to be evidence
that it's continuing to use
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:36:37AM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
- Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au skrev:
SAS: Full SCSI TCQ
SATA: Lame ATA NCQ
What's so lame about NCQ?
Primarily, the meager number of outstanding requests; write cache is
needed to pretend the writes are done
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au wrote:
What's so lame about NCQ?
Primarily, the meager number of outstanding requests; write cache is
needed to pretend the writes are done straight away and free up the
slots for reads.
NCQ handles 32 outstanding operations.
- Dave Pooser dave@alfordmedia.com skrev:
I'm building another 24-bay rackmount storage server, and I'm
considering
what drives to put in the bays. My chassis is a Supermicro SC846A, so
the
backplane supports SAS or SATA; my controllers are LSI3081E, again
supporting SAS or SATA.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dave Pooser
(lots of small writes/reads), how much benefit will I see from the SAS
interface?
In some cases, SAS outperforms SATA. I don't know what circumstances those
are.
I think the
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
About SAS vs SATA, I'd guess you won't be able to see any change at
all. The bottleneck is the drives, not the interface to them.
That doesn't agree with my
On Apr 25, 2010, at 10:02 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
I'm building another 24-bay rackmount storage server, and I'm considering
what drives to put in the bays. My chassis is a Supermicro SC846A, so the
backplane supports SAS or SATA; my controllers are LSI3081E, again
supporting SAS or SATA.
SAS: full duplex
SATA: half duplex
SAS: dual port
SATA: single port (some enterprise SATA has dual port)
SAS: 2 active channel - 2 concurrent write, or 2 read, or 1 write and 1 read
SATA: 1 active channel - 1 read or 1 write
SAS: Full error detection and recovery on both read and write
SATA:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Dave Pooser dave@alfordmedia.com wrote:
Assuming I'm going to be using three 8-drive RAIDz2 configurations, and
further assuming this server will be used for backing up home directories
(lots of small writes/reads), how much benefit will I see from the SAS
- Brandon High bh...@freaks.com skrev:
SAS drives are generally intended to be used in a multi-drive / RAID
environment, and are delivered with TLER / CCTL / ERC enabled to
prevent them from falling out of arrays when they hit a read error.
SAS drives will generally have a longer
On 4/26/10 10:10 AM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
SAS shines with multiple connections to one or more hosts. Hence, SAS
is quite popular when implementing HA clusters.
So that would be how one builds something like the active/active controller
failover in standalone RAID
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
SAS drives will generally have a longer warranty than desktop drives.
With 2TB drives priced at €150 or lower, I somehow think paying for
drive lifetime is far more expensive than getting a few more drives
and add redundancy
This really
This really depends on if you are willing to pay in advance, or pay
after the failure. Even with redundancy, the cost of a failure may be
high due to loss of array performance and system administration time.
Array performance may go into the toilet during resilvers, depending
on the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 01:32:33PM -0500, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 4/26/10 10:10 AM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
SAS shines with multiple connections to one or more hosts. Hence, SAS
is quite popular when implementing HA clusters.
So that would be how one builds
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
With 2TB drives priced at €150 or lower, I somehow think paying for
drive lifetime is far more expensive than getting a few more drives and
add redundancy
If you have a
On 26/04/10 03:02 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
I'm building another 24-bay rackmount storage server, and I'm considering
what drives to put in the bays. My chassis is a Supermicro SC846A, so the
backplane supports SAS or SATA; my controllers are LSI3081E, again
supporting SAS or SATA.
Looking at
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:02:42AM -0700, Chris Du wrote:
SAS: full duplex
SATA: half duplex
SAS: dual port
SATA: single port (some enterprise SATA has dual port)
SAS: 2 active channel - 2 concurrent write, or 2 read, or 1 write and 1 read
SATA: 1 active channel - 1 read or 1 write
I'm building another 24-bay rackmount storage server, and I'm considering
what drives to put in the bays. My chassis is a Supermicro SC846A, so the
backplane supports SAS or SATA; my controllers are LSI3081E, again
supporting SAS or SATA.
Looking at drives, Seagate offers an enterprise
24 matches
Mail list logo
