On 06/01/2011 00:14, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
solaris engineers don't use? Non-sun hardware. Pretty safe bet you won't
find any Dell servers in the server room where solaris developers do their
thing.
You would lose that bet, not only would you find Dell you would many
other big names as
I've deployed large SAN's on both SuperMicro 825/826/846 and Dell
R610/R710's and I've not found any issues so far. I always make a point of
installing Intel chipset NIC's on the DELL's and disabling the Broadcom ones
but other than that it's always been plain sailing - hardware-wise anyway.
I've
From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@nexenta.com]
If I understand correctly, you want Dell, HP, and IBM to run OSes other
I agree, but neither Dell, HP, nor IBM develop Windows...
I'm not sure of the current state, but many of the Solaris engineers
develop
on laptops and Sun did
This is a silly argument, but...
Haven't seen any underdog proven solid enough for me to deploy in
enterprise yet.
I haven't seen any overdog proven solid enough for me to be able to rely
on either. Certainly not Solaris. Don't get me wrong, I like(d) Solaris.
But every so often you'd
From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
with regards to ZFS and all the other projects relevant to solaris.)
I know in the case of SGE/OGE, it's officially closed source now. As of
Dec
31st, sunsource is being
From: Khushil Dep [mailto:khushil@gmail.com]
I've deployed large SAN's on both SuperMicro 825/826/846 and Dell
R610/R710's and I've not found any issues so far. I always make a point of
installing Intel chipset NIC's on the DELL's and disabling the Broadcom ones
but other than that it's
From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
But that's precisely why it's an impossible situation. In order for the
client to see a checksum error, it must have read some corrupt data from
the
pool storage, but the server will never allow that to happen. So the
short
Two fold really - firstly I remember the headaches I used to have
configuring Broadcom cards properly under Debain/Ubuntu but the sweetness
that was using an Intel NIC. Bottom line for me was that I know Intel
drivers have been around longer than Broadcom drivers and thus it would make
sense to
For anyone that is interested, here's a progress report.
I created a new pool with only one mirror vdev of 2 disks, namely with the new
SAMSUNG HD204UI. These drives, along with the older HD203WI, use Advanced
Format Technology (e.g. 4K sectors). Only these drives had hard errors in my
pool,
On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Khushil Dep [mailto:khushil@gmail.com]
We do have a major commercial interest - Nexenta. It's been quiet but I do
look forward to seeing something come out of that stable this year? :-)
I'll agree to call Nexenta a major
On Jan 5, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@nexenta.com]
I'll agree to call Nexenta a major commerical interest, in regards to
contribution to the open source ZFS tree, if they become an officially
supported OS on Dell, HP, and/or IBM
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
But the conclusion remains the same: Redundancy is not needed at the
client, because any data corruption the client could possibly see from the
server would be transient and
On Thu, December 23, 2010 22:45, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bill Werner
on a single 60GB SSD drive, use FDISK to create 3 physical partitions, a
20GB
for boot, a 30GB for L2ARC and a 10GB for
Folks,
I have been told that the checksum value returned by Sha256 is almost
guaranteed to be unique. In fact, if Sha256 fails in some case, we have a
bigger problem such as memory corruption, etc. Essentially, adding verification
to sha256 is an overkill.
Perhaps (Sha256+NoVerification)
On 5 January 2011 13:26, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
One comment about etiquette though:
I'll certainly bear your comments in mind in future, however I'm not
sure what happened to the subject, as I used the interface at
On 6 January 2011 20:02, Chris Murray chrismurra...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2011 13:26, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
One comment about etiquette though:
I'll certainly bear your comments in mind in future, however I'm not
sure what
On Thu, January 6, 2011 14:44, Peter Taps wrote:
I have been told that the checksum value returned by Sha256 is almost
guaranteed to be unique. In fact, if Sha256 fails in some case, we have a
bigger problem such as memory corruption, etc. Essentially, adding
verification to sha256 is an
On 01/ 6/11 07:44 PM, Peter Taps wrote:
Folks,
I have been told that the checksum value returned by Sha256 is almost
guaranteed to be unique. In fact, if Sha256 fails in some case, we have a
bigger problem such as memory corruption, etc. Essentially, adding verification
to sha256 is an
On Jan 6, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Peter Taps wrote:
Folks,
I have been told that the checksum value returned by Sha256 is almost
guaranteed to be unique. In fact, if Sha256 fails in some case, we have a
bigger problem such as memory corruption, etc. Essentially, adding
verification to sha256
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:44:31AM -0800, Peter Taps wrote:
I have been told that the checksum value returned by Sha256 is almost
guaranteed to be unique.
All hash functions are guaranteed to have collisions [for inputs larger
than their output anyways].
In fact, if
On Jan 6, 2011, at 15:57, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Fletcher is faster than SHA-256, so I think that must be what you're
asking about: can Fletcher+Verification be faster than
Sha256+NoVerification? Or do you have some other goal?
Would running on recent T-series servers, which have have
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:07:47PM -0500, David Magda wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 15:57, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Fletcher is faster than SHA-256, so I think that must be what you're
asking about: can Fletcher+Verification be faster than
Sha256+NoVerification? Or do you have some other
From: Brandon High [mailto:bh...@freaks.com]
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
But the conclusion remains the same: Redundancy is not needed at the
client, because any data corruption the client could possibly see
From: Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com
To: 'Khushil Dep' khushil@gmail.com
Cc: Richard Elling richard.ell...@nexenta.com,
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions
Message-ID:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Peter Taps
Perhaps (Sha256+NoVerification) would work 99.99% of the time. But
Append 50 more 9's on there.
99.%
See below.
I
At the end of the day this issue essentially is about mathematical
improbability versus certainty?
To be quite honest, I too am skeptical about about using de-dupe just based on
SHA256. In prior posts it was asked that the potential adopter of the
technology provide the mathematical reason to
Hi ZFS Discuss,
I have a 8x 1TB RAIDZ running on Samsung 1TB 5400rpm drives with 512b sectors.
I will be replacing all of these with 8x Western Digital 2TB drives
with support for 4K sectors. The replacement plan will be to swap out
each of the 8 drives until all are replaced and the new size
zfs replace will copy across on to the disk with the same old ashift=9,
whereas you want ashift=12 for 4KB drives. (size = 2^ashift)
You'd need to make a new pool (or add a vdev to an existing pool) with the
modified tools in order to get proper performance out of 4KB drives.
On 7 January 2011
28 matches
Mail list logo
