Hi all,
Did anyone ever confirm whether this ssr212 box, without hardware raid
option, works reliably under OpenSolaris without fooling around with external
drivers, etc.? I need a box like this, but can't find a vendor that will give
me a try buy. (Yes, I'm spoiled by Sun).
thx
On December 13, 2007 10:12:52 PM -0800 can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On December 13, 2007 12:51:55 PM -0800 can you
guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
when the difference between an unrecoverable
single
bit error is not just
1 bit but the entire file, or corruption of an
On Dec 14, 2007 1:12 AM, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes. far rarer and yet home users still see
them.
I'd need to see evidence of that for current
hardware.
What would constitute evidence? Do anecdotal tales
from home users
qualify? I have two disks (and one
...
though I'm not familiar with any recent examples in normal desktop environments
One example found during early use of zfs in Solaris engineering was
a system with a flaky power supply.
It seemed to work just fine with ufs but when zfs was installed the
sata drives started to shows many
...
though I'm not familiar with any recent examples in
normal desktop environments
One example found during early use of zfs in Solaris
engineering was
a system with a flaky power supply.
It seemed to work just fine with ufs but when zfs was
installed the
sata drives started to
On Dec 14, 2007 4:23 AM, can you guess? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume that you're referring to ZFS checksum errors rather than to transfer
errors caught by the CRC resulting in retries.
Correct.
If so, then the next obvious question is, what is causing the ZFS checksum
errors? And
the next obvious question is, what is
causing the ZFS checksum errors? And (possibly of
some help in answering that question) is the disk
seeing CRC transfer errors (which show up in its
SMART data)?
The memory is ECC in this machine, and Memtest passed
it for five
days. The disk was
this anti-raid-card movement is puzzling.
I think you've misinterpreted my questions.
I queried the necessity of paying extra for an seemingly unnecessary RAID card
for zfs. I didn't doubt that it could perform better.
Wasn't one of the design briefs of zfs, that it would provide it's feature
MP wrote:
this anti-raid-card movement is puzzling.
I think you've misinterpreted my questions.
I queried the necessity of paying extra for an seemingly unnecessary RAID
card for zfs. I didn't doubt that it could perform better.
Wasn't one of the design briefs of zfs, that it would
Additional examples abound.
Doubtless :)
More usefully, can you confirm whether Solaris works on this chassis without
the RAID controller?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
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
On December 13, 2007 9:47:00 AM -0800 MP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Additional examples abound.
Doubtless :)
More usefully, can you confirm whether Solaris works on this chassis
without the RAID controller?
way back, i had Solaris working with a promise j200s (jbod sas) chassis,
to the extent
On December 13, 2007 11:34:54 AM -0800 can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By contrast, if extremely rare undetected and (other than via ZFS
checksums) undetectable (or considerably more common undetected but
detectable via disk ECC codes, *if* the data is accessed) corruption
occurs, if
...
when the difference between an unrecoverable single
bit error is not just
1 bit but the entire file, or corruption of an entire
database row (etc),
those small and infrequent errors are an extremely
big deal.
You are confusing unrecoverable disk errors (which are rare but orders of
...
If the RAID card scrubs its disks
A scrub without checksum puts a huge burden on disk
firmware and
error reporting paths :-)
Actually, a scrub without checksum places far less burden on the disks and
their firmware than ZFS-style scrubbing does, because it merely has to scan the
On December 13, 2007 12:51:55 PM -0800 can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
when the difference between an unrecoverable single
bit error is not just
1 bit but the entire file, or corruption of an entire
database row (etc),
those small and infrequent errors are an extremely
big
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You are confusing unrecoverable disk errors (which are rare but orders of
magnitude more common) with otherwise *undetectable* errors (the occurrence
of which is at most once in petabytes by the studies I've seen, rather than
once in terabytes), despite my attempt to
I could use a little clarification on how these unrecoverable disk errors
behave -- or maybe a lot, depending on one's point of view.
So, when one of these once in around ten (or 100) terabytes read events
occurs, my understanding is that a read error is returned by the drive,
and the
...
Now it seems to me that without parity/replication,
there's not much
point in doing the scrubbing, because you could
just wait for the error
to be detected when someone tries to read the data
for real. It's
only if you can repair such an error (before the
data is needed) that
On Dec 14, 2007 1:12 AM, can you guess? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes. far rarer and yet home users still see them.
I'd need to see evidence of that for current hardware.
What would constitute evidence? Do anecdotal tales from home users
qualify? I have two disks (and one controller!) that
On November 29, 2007 5:56:04 AM -0800 MP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intel show a configuration of this chassis in the Hardware Technical
Specification:
http://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/ssr212mc2/sb/ssr212
mc2_tps_12.pdf
without the RAID controller. I assume that then the
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
On Nov 30, 2007, at 2:47 AM, MP wrote:
I evaled one of these too. Worked great with ZFS.
Was that with OpenSolaris and was that with or without the Intel
RAID controller?
Cheers.
Solaris 10 8/07, it was with the built-in RAID controller.
-john
I evaled one of these too. Worked great with ZFS.
Was that with OpenSolaris and was that with or without the Intel RAID
controller?
Cheers.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Intel show a configuration of this chassis in the Hardware Technical
Specification:
http://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/ssr212mc2/sb/ssr212mc2_tps_12.pdf
without the RAID controller. I assume that then the 4xSAS ports on the
Blackford chipset are then used, rather than the
Rumours are that Dell are going to start supporting ZFS now they're shipping
Solaris. I'm waiting to see if there are going to be some nice little boxes
from them :)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Sun did something like this with the v60 and v65 servers, and they should do it
again with the SSR212MC2.
The heart of the SAS subsystem of the SSR212MC2 is the SRCSAS144E .
This card is interfacing with a Vitesse VSC410 SAS-expander and is plugged into
a S5000PSL motherboard.
This card is
Internal drives suck. If you go through the trouble of putting in a
drive, at least make it hot pluggable.
They are all hot-swappable/pluggable on the the SSR212MC2. There are two
additional internal 2.5 SAS bonus drives that arent, but the front 12 are.
I for one think external enclosures are
Mick Russom wrote:
Sun's own v60 and Sun v65 were pure Intel reference servers that worked
GREAT!
I'm glad they worked for you. But I'll note that the critical deficiencies
in those platforms is solved by the newer Sun AMD/Intel/SPARC small form factor
rackmount servers. The new chassis are
Nigel Smith wrote:
It's a pity that Sun does not manufacture something like this.
The x4500 Thumper, with 48 disks is way over the top for most companies,
and too expensive. And the new X4150 only has 8 disks.
This Intel box with 12 hot-swap drives and two internal boot drives
looks like the
On 26 September, 2007 - Nigel Smith sent me these 1,2K bytes:
It's a pity that Sun does not manufacture something like this.
The x4500 Thumper, with 48 disks is way over the top for most companies,
and too expensive. And the new X4150 only has 8 disks.
This Intel box with 12 hot-swap drives
31 matches
Mail list logo
