Hi,
Actually the idea of having the ZFS code inside a HW raid controllers
does seems quite interesting. Imagine the possibility of having any OS
with raid volumes backed by all the good aspects of the ZFS, specially
the checksum and the raidz vs the raid5-write-hole thing...
I also consider the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25.03.2010 04:13, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I think the point is to say: ZFS software raid is both faster and more
reliable than your hardware raid. Surprising
I think the point is to say: ZFS software raid is both faster and
more
reliable than your hardware raid. Surprising though it may be for a
newcomer, I have statistics to back that up,
Can you share it?
Sure. Just go to http://nedharvey.com and you'll see four links on the left
side,
The bigger problem is that you have to script around a disk failure, as
the array won't bring a non-redundant logicaldrive back online after a
disk failure without being kicked (which is a good thing in general,
but
annoying for ZFS).
I'd like to follow up on that point. Because until
Hello all,
I am a complete newbie to OpenSolaris, and must to setup a ZFS NAS. I do have
linux experience, but have never used ZFS. I have tried to install OpenSolaris
Developer 134 on a 11TB HW RAID-5 virtual disk, but after the installation I
can only use one 2TB disk, and I cannot partition
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Dusan Radovanovic dusa...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello all,
I am a complete newbie to OpenSolaris, and must to setup a ZFS NAS. I do
have linux experience, but have never used ZFS. I have tried to install
OpenSolaris Developer 134 on a 11TB HW RAID-5 virtual disk,
Hi
On Wednesday 24 March 2010 17:01:31 Dusan Radovanovic wrote:
connected to P212 controller in RAID-5. Could someone direct me or suggest
what I am doing wrong. Any help is greatly appreciated.
I don't know, but I would get around this like this:
My suggestion would be to configure the
I believe that write caching is turned off on the boot drives or is it
the controller or both?
Which could be a big problem.
On 03/24/10 11:07, Tim Cook wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Dusan Radovanovic dusa...@gmail.com
mailto:dusa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I am a
Thank you all for your valuable experience and fast replies. I see your point
and will create one virtual disk for the system and one for the storage pool.
My RAID controller is battery backed up, so I'll leave write caching on.
Thanks again,
Dusan
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Mar 24, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Karl Rossing wrote:
I believe that write caching is turned off on the boot drives or is it the
controller or both?
By default, ZFS will not enable volatile write caches on disks for SMI labeled
disk drives (eg boot).
Which could be a big problem.
Actually, it is
On 24.03.2010 17:42, Richard Elling wrote:
Nonvolatile write caches are not a problem.
Which is why ZFS isn't a replacement for proper array controllers
(defining proper as those with sufficient battery to leave you with a
seemingly intact filesystem), but a very nice augmentation for them.
On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Svein Skogen wrote:
On 24.03.2010 17:42, Richard Elling wrote:
Nonvolatile write caches are not a problem.
Which is why ZFS isn't a replacement for proper array controllers (defining
proper as those with sufficient battery to leave you with a seemingly intact
Thank you all for your valuable experience and fast replies. I see your
point and will create one virtual disk for the system and one for the
storage pool. My RAID controller is battery backed up, so I'll leave
write caching on.
I think the point is to say: ZFS software raid is both faster
Which is why ZFS isn't a replacement for proper array controllers
(defining proper as those with sufficient battery to leave you with a
seemingly intact filesystem), but a very nice augmentation for them. ;)
Nothing prevents a clever chap from building a ZFS-based array
controller
which
On 03/24/10 12:54, Richard Elling wrote:
Nothing prevents a clever chap from building a ZFS-based array controller
which includes nonvolatile write cache.
+1 to that. Something that is inexpensive and small (4GB?) and works in
a PCI express slot.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24.03.2010 19:53, Karl Rossing wrote:
On 03/24/10 12:54, Richard Elling wrote:
Nothing prevents a clever chap from building a ZFS-based array controller
which includes nonvolatile write cache.
+1 to that. Something that is inexpensive and
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 08:02:06PM +0100, Svein Skogen wrote:
Maybe someone should look at implementing the zfs code for the XScale
range of io-processors (such as the IOP333)?
NetBSD runs on (many of) those.
NetBSD has an (in-progress, still-some-issues) ZFS port.
Hopefully they will converge
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I think the point is to say: ZFS software raid is both faster and more
reliable than your hardware raid. Surprising though it may be for a
newcomer, I have statistics to back that up,
Can you share it?
You
Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I think the point is to say: ZFS software raid is both faster and more
reliable than your hardware raid. Surprising though it may be for a
newcomer, I have statistics to back that up,
Carson Gaspar wrote:
Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I think the point is to say: ZFS software raid is both faster and more
reliable than your hardware raid. Surprising though it may be for a
newcomer, I have statistics
Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Carson Gaspar car...@taltos.org wrote:
Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
You will do best if you configure the raid controller to JBOD.
Problem: HP's storage controller doesn't support that mode.
It does, ish. It forces you to create a bunch of
21 matches
Mail list logo
