--On 24 May 2010 23:41 -0400 rwali...@washdcmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen where anyone has tested this, but the MemoRight SSD (sold
by RocketDisk in the US) seems to claim all the right things:
http://www.rocketdisk.com/vProduct.aspx?ID=1
pdf specs:
--On 25 May 2010 15:28 +0300 Pasi Kärkkäinen pa...@iki.fi wrote:
I've tried contacting Intel to find out if it's true their enterprise
SSD has no cache protection on it, and what the effect of turning the
write cache off would have on both performance and write endurance, but
not heard
--On 25 May 2010 11:15 -0700 Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Karl Pielorz kpielorz_...@tdx.co.uk
wrote:
I've tried contacting Intel to find out if it's true their enterprise
SSD has no cache protection on it, and what the effect of turning the
write
Hi All,
I've been using ZFS for a while now - and everything's been going well. I
use it under FreeBSD - but this question almost certainly should be the
same answer, whether it's FreeBSD or Solaris (I think/hope :)...
Imagine if I have a zpool with 2 disks in it, that are mirrored:
NAME
--On 04 February 2010 11:31 + Karl Pielorz kpielorz_...@tdx.co.uk
wrote:
What would happen when I tried to 'online' ad2 again?
A reply to my own post... I tried this out, when you make 'ad2' online
again, ZFS immediately logs a 'vdev corrupt' failure, and marks 'ad2'
(which
--On 04 February 2010 08:58 -0500 Jacob Ritorto jacob.rito...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seems your controller is actually doing only harm here, or am I missing
something?
The RAID controller presents the drives as both a mirrored pair, and JBOD -
*at the same time*...
The machine boots off the
--On 06 January 2009 16:37 -0800 Carson Gaspar car...@taltos.org wrote:
On 1/6/2009 4:19 PM, Sam wrote:
I was hoping that this was the problem (because just buying more
discs is the cheapest solution given time=$$) but running it by
somebody at work they said going over 90% can cause
Hi All,
I run ZFS (a version 6 pool) under FreeBSD. Whilst I realise this changes a
*whole heap* of things - I'm more interested in if I did 'anything wrong'
when I had a recent drive failure...
On of a mirrored pair of drives on the system started failing, badly
(confirmed by 'hard' read
--On 08 September 2008 07:30 -0700 Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This seems like a reasonable process to follow, I would have done
much the same.
[caveat: I've not examined the FreeBSD ZFS port, the following
presumes the FreeBSD port is similar to the Solaris port]
ZFS does
--On 05 September 2008 07:37 -0700 Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Also, /dev/ad10 is something I don't recognize... what is it?
-- richard
'/dev/ad10' is a FreeBSD disk device, which would kind of be fitting, as:
LyeBeng Ong wrote:
I made a bad judgment and now my raidz pool is
--On 23 August 2008 17:01 -0700 hunter morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ok so i have 3 500gb hard drives in my freebsd fileserver. they are set
up in a pool as a raidz1 of 3 and another raidz1 of 2. like this:
I'm guessing that's a typo - and you mean '5' hard drives, not 3 ;)
pool0
Hi,
I've seen/read a number of articles on the net, about RAIDZ - and things
like Dynamic Striping et'al. I know roughly how this works - but I can't
seem to get to the bottom of expanding existing pool space, if this is even
possible.
e.g. If I build a RAIDZ pool with 5 * 400Gb drives, and
--On 07 December 2007 11:18 -0600 Jason Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am using ZFS on FreeBSD 7.0_beta3. This is the first time i have used
ZFS and I have run into something that I am not sure if this is normal,
but am very concerned about.
SYSTEM INFO:
hp 320s (storage array)
12
Hi All,
I'm a new ZFS convert (so far, I've only been impressed by ZFS) - I'm
running it under FreeBSD 7 atm.
I've got to 'shuffle' all the underlying devices around on my raidz pool -
so their device names will all either change (e.g. da0 will become ad4)
- or the devices will get 'jumbled
14 matches
Mail list logo
