I've read the same log entry, and was also thinking about ZFS...
Pillar Data Systems is also answering to the call
http://blog.pillardata.com/pillar_data_blog/2008/08/blog-i-love-a-p.html
BTW: Would transparent compression be considered as cheating? :-)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.or
EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] EMC - top of the table for efficiency, how well
would ZFS do?
CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ross Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey Tim,
I'll admit I just quoted the blog w
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:06:16AM -0500, Tim wrote:
> > The problem though for our usage with NetApp was that we actually couldn't
> > reserve enough space for snapshots. 50% of the pool was their maximum, and
> > we're interested in running ten years worth of snapshots here, which could
> > see
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ross Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Tim,
>
> I'll admit I just quoted the blog without checking, I seem to remember the
> sales rep I spoke to recommending putting aside 20-50% of my disk for
> snapshots. Compared to ZFS where I don't need to reserve any
ith just 10% of live data and 90% of the space taken up by
snapshots. The NetApp approach was just too restrictive.
Ross
> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:08:09 -0700
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] EMC - top of th
Netapp does NOT recommend 100 percent. Perhaps you should talk to
netapp or one of their partners who know their tech instead of their
competitors next time.
Zfs, the way its currently implemented will require roughly the same
as netapp... Which still isn't 100.
On 8/30/08, Ross <[EMAIL PROTEC
Just saw this blog post linked from the register, it's EMC pointing out that
their array wastes less disk space than either HP or NetApp. I'm loving the
10% of space they have to reserve for snapshots, and you can't add more o_0.
HP similarly recommend 20% of reserved space for snapshots, and N
