how is the performance on the zfs directly without nfs?
i have experienced big problems running nfs on large volumes (independent on
the underlaying fs)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On 11/8/07, Mark Ashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Economics for one.
Yep, for sure ... it was a rhetoric question ;)
Why would I consider a new solution that is safe, fast enough, stable
.. easier to manage and lots cheaper?
Rephrase, Why would I NOT consider ...? :)
Dnia 8-11-2007 o godz. 7:58 Walter Faleiro napisał(a):
Hi Lukasz,
The output of the first sript gives
bash-3.00# ./test.sh
dtrace: script './test.sh' matched 4 probes
CPU
ID
FUNCTION:NAME
0
42681
:tick-10s
0
42681
:tick-10s
0
42681
:tick-10s
0
42681
:tick-10s
0
42681
:tick-10s
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Hi,
I have a customer with the following questions...
*Describe the problem:*
A ZFS Question - I have one ZFS pool which is made from 2 storage
arrays (vdevs). I have to delete the zfs filesystems with the names of
/orbits/araid/* and remove one of
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 01:47:04PM -0800, can you guess? wrote:
I do consider the RAID-Z design to be somewhat brain-damaged [...]
How so? In my opinion, it seems like a cure for the brain damage of RAID-5.
Adam
--
Adam Leventhal, FishWorkshttp://blogs.sun.com/ahl
Economics for one.
We run a number of testing environments which mimic the production one.
But we don't want to spend $750,000 on EMC storage each time when
something costing $200,000 will do the job we need.
At the moment we have over 100TB on four SE6140s and we're very happy
with the
That is interesting, again we're having the same problem with our X4500s.
I am trying to work out what is causing the problem with NFS, restarting the
service causes it to try and stop and not bring it back up.
Rebooting the whole box fails and it just hangs till a hard reset..
This
On 11/7/07, can you guess? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Monday, November 5, 2007, 4:42:14 AM, you wrote:
cyg Having gotten a bit tired of the level of
ZFS
hype floating
...
But I do believe that some of the hype is justified
Just to make it clear, so do I: it's the *unjustified*
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 01:47:04PM -0800, can you
guess? wrote:
I do consider the RAID-Z design to be somewhat
brain-damaged [...]
How so? In my opinion, it seems like a cure for the
brain damage of RAID-5.
Nope.
A decent RAID-5 hardware implementation has no 'write hole' to worry
Au contraire: I estimate its worth quite
accurately from the undetected error rates reported
in the CERN Data Integrity paper published last
April (first hit if you Google 'cern data
integrity').
While I have yet to see any checksum error
reported
by ZFS on
Symmetrix arrays or
can you guess? wrote:
CERN was using relatively cheap disks and found that they were more
than adequate (at least for any normal consumer use) without that
additional level of protection: the incidence of errors, even
including the firmware errors which presumably would not have occurred
We weren't able to do anything at all, and finally rebooted the system. When
we did, everything came back normally, even with the target that was
reporting errors before. We're using an LSI PCI-E controller that's on the
supported device list, and LSI 3801-E. Right now, I'm trying to figure out
if
12 matches
Mail list logo