Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenStorage GUI
Can someone clarify Sun's approach to opensourcing projects and software? I was under the impression the strategy was to charge for hardware, maintenance and PS. If not, some clarification would be nice. On Nov 11, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Bryan Cantrill wrote: 4. If we do make something available, it won't be free. If you are willing/prepared(/eager?) to abide by these constraints, please let us ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) know -- that will help us build the business case for doing this... - Bryan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenStorage GUI
Boyd, That's exactly what I was getting at. This list probably isn't the place to discuss but this is the first real instance aside of maybe xVM Ops Center where it was pretty much put out in the open that you can expect to pay to get the goods. Fishworks seems to have much more than just a nice wrapper put around Solaris, ZFS, NFS, FMA, AVS etc. A lot of my ability to evangelize the benefits of Solaris in the storage world to my customers hinges on me being able to say Try it... you'll like it I know Try-and- buy exists but in the grand scheme of things, adoption of Solaris hinges on easy accessibility. I apologize for the tangent and the VM instance is a good start but the stance on opensourcing right or wrong seems like it has changed. On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Boyd Adamson wrote: Bryan Cantrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 02:21:11PM -0500, Ed Saipetch wrote: Can someone clarify Sun's approach to opensourcing projects and software? I was under the impression the strategy was to charge for hardware, maintenance and PS. If not, some clarification would be nice. There is no single answer -- we use open source as a business strategy, not as a checkbox or edict. For this product, open source is an option going down the road, but not a priority. Will our software be open sourced in the fullness of time? My Magic 8-Ball tells me signs point to yes (or is that ask again later?) -- but it's certainly not something that we have concrete plans for at the moment... I think that's fair enough. What Sun choose to do is, of course, up to Sun. One can, however, understand that people might have expected otherwise given statements like this: With our announced intent to open source the entirety of our software offerings, every single developer across the world now has access to the most sophisticated platform available for web 1.0, 2.0 and beyond - Jonathan Schwartz http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2005-11/sunflash.20051130.1.xml -- Boyd ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS with Traditional SAN
That's the one that's been an issue for me and my customers - they get billed back for GB allocated to their servers by the back end arrays. To be more explicit about the 'self-healing properties' - To deal with any fs corruption situation that would traditionally require an fsck on UFS (SAN switch crash, multipathing issues, cables going flaky or getting pulled, server crash that corrupts fs's) ZFS needs some disk redundancy in place so it has parity and can recover. (raidz, zfs mirror, etc) Which means to use ZFS a customer have to pay more to get the back end storage redundancy they need to recover from anything that would cause an fsck on UFS. I'm not saying it's a bad implementation or that the gains aren't worth it, just that cost-wise, ZFS is more expensive in this particular bill-back model. cheers, Brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss Why would the customer need to use raidz or zfs mirroring if the array is doing it for them? As someone else posted, metadata is already redundant by default and doesn't consume a ton of space. Some people may disagree but the first thing I like about ZFS is the ease of pool management and the second thing is the checksumming. When a customer had issues with Solaris 10 x86, vxfs and EMC powerpath, I took them down the road of using powerpath and zfs. Made some tweaks so we didn't tell the array to flush to rust and they're happy as clams. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] J4200/J4400 Array
This array has not been formally announced yet and information on general availability is not available as far as I know. I saw the docs last week and the product was supposed to be launched a couple of weeks ago. Unofficially this is Sun's continued push to develop cheaper storage options that can be combined with Solaris and the Open Storage initiative to provide customers with options they don't have today. I'd expect the price-point to be quite a bit cheaper than the LC 24XX series of arrays. On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Ben B. wrote: Hi, According to the Sun Handbook, there is a new array : SAS interface 12 disks SAS or SATA ZFS could be used nicely with this box. There is an another version called J4400 with 24 disks. Doc is here : http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/j4200 Does someone know price and availability for these products ? Best Regards, Ben This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS problem with oracle
Wiwat, You should make sure that you have read the Best Practices Guide and the Evil Tuning Guide for helpful information on optimizing ZFS for Oracle. There are some things you can do to tweak ZFS to get better performance like using a separate filesystem for logs and separating the ZFS intent log (ZIL) from the main pool. They can be found here: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide Also, what kind of disk subsystem (number of disks, is it an array?, etc.) and how do you have your zfs pools configured (raid type, separate ZIL, etc.)? Hope this gives you a start. -Ed Wiwat Kiatdechawit wrote: I implement ZFS with Oracle but it slower than UFS very much. Do you have any solution? Can I fix this problem with ZFS direct I/O. If it can, how to set it? Wiwat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs corruption w/ sil3114 sata controllers
Tried that... completely different cases with different power supplies. On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Al Hopper wrote: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, MC wrote: Here's what I've done so far: The obvious thing to test is the drive controller, so maybe you should do that :) Also - while you're doing swapTronics - don't forget the Power Supply (PSU). Ensure that your PSU has sufficient capacity on its 12Volt rails (older PSUs did'nt even tell you how much current they can push out on the 12V outputs). See also: http://blogs.sun.com/elowe/entry/zfs_saves_the_day_ta Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ Graduate from sugar-coating school? Sorry - I never attended! :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs corruption w/ sil3114 sata controllers
Hello, I'm experiencing major checksum errors when using a syba silicon image 3114 based pci sata controller w/ nonraid firmware. I've tested by copying data via sftp and smb. With everything I've swapped out, I can't fathom this being a hardware problem. There have been quite a few blog posts out there with people having a similar config and not having any problems. Here's what I've done so far: 1. Changed solaris releases from S10 U3 to NV 75a 2. Switched out motherboards and cpus from AMD sempron to a Celeron D 3. Switched out memory to use completely different dimms 4. Switched out sata drives (2-3 250gb hitachi's and seagates in RAIDZ, 3x400GB seagates RAIDZ and 1x250GB hitachi with no raid) Here's output of a scrub and the status (ignore the date and time, I haven't reset it on this new motherboard) and please point me in the right direction if I'm barking up the wrong tree. # zpool scrub tank # zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data corruption. Applications may be affected. action: Restore the file in question if possible. Otherwise restore the entire pool from backup. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-8A scrub: scrub completed with 140 errors on Sat Sep 15 02:07:35 2007 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM tankONLINE 0 0 293 c0d1 ONLINE 0 0 293 errors: 140 data errors, use '-v' for a list This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
