Hello Jason,
Sunday, January 14, 2007, 1:26:37 AM, you wrote:
JJWW> Hi Robert,
JJWW> Will build 54 offline the drive?
IIRC there hasn't been ZFS+FMA integration yet.
--
Best regards,
Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mile
Hi,
Since they have installed a second path to our Hitachi SAN, my Mac OS X Server
4.8 mounts every SAN disk twice.
I asked everywhere, if there's a way, to correct that. And the only answer so
far was, that I need a volume manager, that can be configured to consider two
volumes as being ident
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:00:36AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been looking at zfs source trying to get up to speed on the
internals. One thing that interests me about the fs is what appears to be
a low hanging fruit for block squishing CAS (Content Address
Hello Philip,
Monday, January 15, 2007, 10:44:49 AM, you wrote:
PM> Hi,
PM> Since they have installed a second path to our Hitachi SAN, my
PM> Mac OS X Server 4.8 mounts every SAN disk twice.
PM> I asked everywhere, if there's a way, to correct that. And the
PM> only answer so far was, that I n
Hi, are there currently any plans to make an iSCSI target created by
setting shareiscsi=on on a zvol
bindable to a single interface (setting tpgt or acls)?
I can cobble something together with ipfilter,
but that doesn't give me enough granularity to say something like:
'host a can see target 1,
Hi,
> Monday, January 15, 2007, 10:44:49 AM, you wrote:
> PM> Since they have installed a second path to our Hitachi SAN, my
> PM> Mac OS X Server 4.8 mounts every SAN disk twice.
> PM> I asked everywhere, if there's a way, to correct that. And the
> PM> only answer so far was, that I need a volu
I have no hands-on experience with ZFS but have a question. If the
file server running ZFS exports the ZFS file system via NFS to
clients, based on previous messages on this list, it is not possible
for an NFS client to mount this NFS-exported ZFS file system on
multiple directories on the NFS clie
Jonathan Edwards writes:
>
> On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:10, Anton B. Rang wrote:
>
> >> DIRECT IO is a set of performance optimisations to circumvent
> >> shortcomings of a given filesystem.
> >
> > Direct I/O as generally understood (i.e. not UFS-specific) is an
> > optimization which al
Go poke around in the multipath Xsan storage pool properties. Specifies how
Xsan uses multiple Fibre Channel paths between clients and storage. This is
the equiv of Veritas DMP or [whatever we now call] Solaris MPxIO
/d
2007/1/15, Philip Mötteli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
> Monday, January 15,
Richard Elling wrote:
roland wrote:
i have come across an interesting article at :
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2859&p=5
Can anyone comment on the claims or conclusions of the article itself?
It seems to me that they are not always clear about what they are
talking about.
Man
Robert Milkowski wrote:
2. I belive it's definitely possible to just correct your config under
Mac OS without any need to use other fs or volume manager, however
going to zfs could be a good idea anyway
That implies that MacOS has some sort of native SCSI multipathing like
Solaris Mpxio. Doe
The SATA frame work has laready been integrated and is available on Solaris 10
Update 3 and Nevada.
Cheers
Andrew.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman
On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
Hi, are there currently any plans to make an iSCSI target created by
setting shareiscsi=on on a zvol
bindable to a single interface (setting tpgt or acls)?
I can cobble something together with ipfilter,
but that doesn't give me enough granularity
Hi Torrey,
I think it does if you buy Xsan. Its still a separate product isn't
it? Thought its more like QFS + MPXIO.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/15/07, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
>
> 2. I belive it's definitely possible to just correct your config under
> M
Hi Roch,
You mentioned improved ZFS performance in the latest Nevada build (60
right now?)...I was curious if one would notice much of a performance
improvement between 54 and 60? Also, does anyone think the zfs_arc_max
tunable-support will be made available as a patch to S10U3, or would
that wai
Got me. However, transport multipathing - Like Mpxio, DLM, VxDMP, etc. -
is usually separated from the filesystem layers.
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi Torrey,
I think it does if you buy Xsan. Its still a separate product isn't
it? Thought its more like QFS + MPXIO.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1
Hello Albert,
Monday, January 15, 2007, 5:55:23 PM, you wrote:
AC> I have no hands-on experience with ZFS but have a question. If the
AC> file server running ZFS exports the ZFS file system via NFS to
AC> clients, based on previous messages on this list, it is not possible
AC> for an NFS client t
Hi Torrey,
Looks like its got a half-way decent multipath design:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=Xsan/1.1/en/c3xs12.html
Whether or not it works is another story I suppose. ;-)
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/15/07, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Got me. However, transport m
On January 15, 2007 11:58:10 AM -0800 Andrew Pattison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The SATA frame work has laready been integrated and is available on
Solaris 10 Update 3 and Nevada.
update 2 as well, yes? I thought U2 is when the first SATA support
was announced, for the Marvell controller.
-f
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
roland wrote:
i have come across an interesting article at :
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2859&p=5
Can anyone comment on the claims or conclusions of the article itself?
It seems to me that they are not always clear about what they are
On 1/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Dick Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/10/2007 05:26:45 AM:
> On 08/01/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that in addition to lzjb compression, squishing blocks that
contain
> > the same data would buy a lot
(It's perhaps worth noting that cachefs won't work with NFSv4, so if you want
to try this, manually force your server and/or clients into v3.)
This will, of course, limit your scalability to whatever your NFS server can
push through the network (modulo caching). QFS is a better choice if you ne
> Go poke around in the multipath Xsan storage pool
> properties. Specifies
> how Xsan uses multiple Fibre Channel paths between
> clients and storage.
> This is the equiv of Veritas DMP or [whatever we now
> call] Solaris MPxIO
You mean, I should find some configuration file? Well, I can't find o
> Robert Milkowski wrote:
> >
> > 2. I belive it's definitely possible to just
> correct your config under
> > Mac OS without any need to use other fs or volume
> manager, however
> > going to zfs could be a good idea anyway
>
>
> That implies that MacOS has some sort of native SCSI
> multipathin
> Looks like its got a half-way decent multipath
> design:
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=Xsan/1.1/
> en/c3xs12.html
Great, but that is with Xsan. If I don't exchange our Hitachi with an Xsan, I
don't have this 'cvadmin'.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
25 matches
Mail list logo