Re: [zfs-discuss] Remove the zfs snapshot keeping the original volume and clone
Hi ! Have anyone given an answer to this that I have missed ? I have a customer that have the same question and I want to give him a correct answer. /Henrik Ketan wrote: I created a snapshot and subsequent clone of a zfs volume. But now i 'm not able to remove the snapshot it gives me following error zfs destroy newpool/ldom2/zdi...@bootimg cannot destroy 'newpool/ldom2/zdi...@bootimg': snapshot has dependent clones use '-R' to destroy the following datasets: newpool/ldom2/zdisk0 and if i promote the clone then the original volume becomes the dependent clone , is there a way to destroy just the snapshot leaving the clone and original volume intact ? -- Henrik Bjornstrom Sun MicrosystemsEmail: henrik.bjornst...@sun.com Box 51 Phone: +46 8 631 1315 164 94 KISTA SWEDEN ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS read performance scalability
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, en...@businessgrade.com wrote: Hi. I've been doing some simple read/write tests using filebench on a mirrored pool. Essentially, I've been scaling up the number of disks in the pool before each test between 4, 8 and 12. I've noticed that for individual disks, ZFS write performance scales very well between 4, 8 and 12 disks. This may be due to the fact that I'm using a SSD as a logging device. But I'm seeing individual disk performance drop by as much as 14MB per disk between 4 and 12 disks. Across the entire pool that means I've lost 168MB of raw throughput just by adding two mirror sets. I'm curious to know if there are any dials I can turn to improve this. System details are below: Sun is currently working on several prefetch bugs (complete loss of prefetch insufficient prefetch) which have been identified. Perhaps you were not on this list in July when a huge amount of discussion traffic was dominated by the topic Why is Solaris 10 ZFS performance so terrible?, http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-July/029340.html;. It turned out that the subject was over-specific since current OpenSolaris suffers from the same issues as proven by test results run by many people on a wide variety of hardware. Eventually Rich Morris posted a preliminary analysis of the performance problem at http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-July/030169.html; Hopefully Sun will get the prefetch algorithm and timing perfected so that we may enjoy the full benefit of our hardware. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS read performance scalability
Hi; You may be hitting a bottleneck at your HBA. Try using multiple HBA's or drive channels Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email mertol.ozyo...@sun.com -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of en...@businessgrade.com Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:16 PM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] ZFS read performance scalability Hi. I've been doing some simple read/write tests using filebench on a mirrored pool. Essentially, I've been scaling up the number of disks in the pool before each test between 4, 8 and 12. I've noticed that for individual disks, ZFS write performance scales very well between 4, 8 and 12 disks. This may be due to the fact that I'm using a SSD as a logging device. But I'm seeing individual disk performance drop by as much as 14MB per disk between 4 and 12 disks. Across the entire pool that means I've lost 168MB of raw throughput just by adding two mirror sets. I'm curious to know if there are any dials I can turn to improve this. System details are below: HW: Dual Quad Core 2.33 Xeon 8GB RAM Disks: Seagate Savio 10K 146GB and LSI 1068e HBA latest firmware OS: SCXE snv_121 Thank in advance.. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS read performance scalability
There is around a zillion possible reasons for this. In my experience, most folks don't or can't create enough load. Make sure you have enough threads creating work. Other than that, the scientific method would suggest creating experiments, making measurements, running regressions, etc. -- richard On Aug 31, 2009, at 7:16 AM, en...@businessgrade.com wrote: Hi. I've been doing some simple read/write tests using filebench on a mirrored pool. Essentially, I've been scaling up the number of disks in the pool before each test between 4, 8 and 12. I've noticed that for individual disks, ZFS write performance scales very well between 4, 8 and 12 disks. This may be due to the fact that I'm using a SSD as a logging device. But I'm seeing individual disk performance drop by as much as 14MB per disk between 4 and 12 disks. Across the entire pool that means I've lost 168MB of raw throughput just by adding two mirror sets. I'm curious to know if there are any dials I can turn to improve this. System details are below: HW: Dual Quad Core 2.33 Xeon 8GB RAM Disks: Seagate Savio 10K 146GB and LSI 1068e HBA latest firmware OS: SCXE snv_121 Thank in advance.. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS read performance scalability
Quoting Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us: On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, en...@businessgrade.com wrote: Hi. I've been doing some simple read/write tests using filebench on a mirrored pool. Essentially, I've been scaling up the number of disks in the pool before each test between 4, 8 and 12. I've noticed that for individual disks, ZFS write performance scales very well between 4, 8 and 12 disks. This may be due to the fact that I'm using a SSD as a logging device. But I'm seeing individual disk performance drop by as much as 14MB per disk between 4 and 12 disks. Across the entire pool that means I've lost 168MB of raw throughput just by adding two mirror sets. I'm curious to know if there are any dials I can turn to improve this. System details are below: Sun is currently working on several prefetch bugs (complete loss of prefetch insufficient prefetch) which have been identified. Perhaps you were not on this list in July when a huge amount of discussion traffic was dominated by the topic Why is Solaris 10 ZFS performance so terrible?, http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-July/029340.html;. It turned out that the subject was over-specific since current OpenSolaris suffers from the same issues as proven by test results run by many people on a wide variety of hardware. Eventually Rich Morris posted a preliminary analysis of the performance problem at http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-July/030169.html; Hopefully Sun will get the prefetch algorithm and timing perfected so that we may enjoy the full benefit of our hardware. Thanks Bob. Can you or anyone else comment on how this bug would interact with a zvol that's being remotely accessed? I can see clearly how this would come into play in on a local ZFS filesystem, but how about a remote system using the zvol through iscsi or FC? This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS read performance scalability
Quoting Mertol Ozyoney mertol.ozyo...@sun.com: Hi; You may be hitting a bottleneck at your HBA. Try using multiple HBA's or drive channels Mertol I'm pretty sure it's not a HBA issue. As I commented, my per-disk write throughput stayed pretty consistent for 4, 8 and 12 disk pools and varied between 80 and 90MB. The overall rough average was about 85MB per second, per disk. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Remove the zfs snapshot keeping the original volume and clone
From the ZFS man page: Clones can only be created from a snapshot. When a snapshot is cloned, it creates an implicit dependency between the parent and child. Even though the clone is created somewhere else in the dataset hierarchy, the original snapshot cannot be destroyed as long as a clone exists. The origin pro- perty exposes this dependency, and the destroy command lists any such dependencies, if they exist. The clone parent-child dependency relationship can be reversed by using the promote subcommand. This causes the origin file system to become a clone of the specified file system, which makes it possible to destroy the file system that the clone was created from. This implies that the question being asked is incomplete. What are they trying to do? -- richard On Aug 31, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Henrik Bjornstrom - Sun Microsystems wrote: Hi ! Have anyone given an answer to this that I have missed ? I have a customer that have the same question and I want to give him a correct answer. /Henrik Ketan wrote: I created a snapshot and subsequent clone of a zfs volume. But now i 'm not able to remove the snapshot it gives me following error zfs destroy newpool/ldom2/zdi...@bootimg cannot destroy 'newpool/ldom2/zdi...@bootimg': snapshot has dependent clones use '-R' to destroy the following datasets: newpool/ldom2/zdisk0 and if i promote the clone then the original volume becomes the dependent clone , is there a way to destroy just the snapshot leaving the clone and original volume intact ? -- Henrik Bjornstrom Sun MicrosystemsEmail: henrik.bjornst...@sun.com Box 51 Phone: +46 8 631 1315 164 94 KISTA SWEDEN ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Remove the zfs snapshot keeping the original volume and clone
On 08/31/09 08:30, Henrik Bjornstrom - Sun Microsystems wrote: Hi ! Have anyone given an answer to this that I have missed ? I have a customer that have the same question and I want to give him a correct answer. /Henrik Ketan wrote: I created a snapshot and subsequent clone of a zfs volume. But now i 'm not able to remove the snapshot it gives me following error zfs destroy newpool/ldom2/zdi...@bootimg cannot destroy 'newpool/ldom2/zdi...@bootimg': snapshot has dependent clones use '-R' to destroy the following datasets: newpool/ldom2/zdisk0 and if i promote the clone then the original volume becomes the dependent clone , is there a way to destroy just the snapshot leaving the clone and original volume intact ? no. As long as a clone exists, its origin snapshot must exist as well. lori ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Status/priority of 6761786
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 01:37:11PM -0600, Dave wrote: Can anyone from Sun comment on the status/priority of bug ID 6761786? Seems like this would be a very high priority bug, but it hasn't been updated since Oct 2008. Has anyone else with thousands of volume snapshots experienced the hours long import process? It might not be direct ZFS fault. I tried to reproduce this on FreeBSD and I was able to import pool with ~2000 ZVOLs and ~1 ZVOL snapshots in few minutes. Those were empty ZVOLs and empty snapshots, so keep that in mind. All in all creating /dev/ entries might be slow in Solaris that's why experience this behaviour when importing ZFS pool with many ZVOLs and many ZVOL snapshots (note that every ZVOL snapshot is a device entry in /dev/zvol/, not like with file systems where snapshots are mounted on .zfs/snapshot/name lookup and not on import time). -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl p...@freebsd.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! pgpTg9d63ool5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs performance cliff when over 80% util, still occuring when pool in 6
As I understand it, when you expand a pool, the data do not automatically migrate to the other disks. You will have to rewrite the data somehow, usually a backup/restore. -Scott -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Status/priority of 6761786
On 08/31/09 19:54, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 01:37:11PM -0600, Dave wrote: Can anyone from Sun comment on the status/priority of bug ID 6761786? Seems like this would be a very high priority bug, but it hasn't been updated since Oct 2008. Has anyone else with thousands of volume snapshots experienced the hours long import process? It might not be direct ZFS fault. I tried to reproduce this on FreeBSD and I was able to import pool with ~2000 ZVOLs and ~1 ZVOL snapshots in few minutes. Those were empty ZVOLs and empty snapshots, so keep that in mind. All in all creating /dev/ entries might be slow in Solaris that's why experience this behaviour when importing ZFS pool with many ZVOLs and many ZVOL snapshots (note that every ZVOL snapshot is a device entry in /dev/zvol/, not like with file systems where snapshots are mounted on .zfs/snapshot/name lookup and not on import time). Indeed, that (devfsadm taking a long time) is probably 6822622 'zpool import with a large number of zvols is very slow'. Alas the information available on b.o.o is extremely thin. I ran into this slow import with lots of snapshots of ZVOLs myself some builds ago. A boot would take around 20 minutes. A good way to see if you are suffering from this problem is to temporarily comment out the line '/usr/sbin/zfs volinit' from /lib/svc/method/devices-local. Booting should be much faster then. (I have since disabled automatic snapshots on ZVOLs and my system boots in reasonable time again). Menno -- Menno Lageman - Sun Microsystems - http://blogs.sun.com/menno ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] shrink the rpool zpool or increase rpool zpool via add disk.
On 08/29/09 05:41, Robert Milkowski wrote: casper@sun.com wrote: Randall Badilla wrote: Hi all: First; it is possible modify the boot zpool rpool after OS installation...? I install the OS on the whole 72GB harddisk.. it is mirrored so If I want to decrease the rpool; for example resize to a 36GB slice it can be done? As far I remember on UFS/SVM I was able to resize boot OS disk via detach mirror (so tranforming to one-way mirror); ajust the partitions then attach de mirror. After sync boot form the resized mirror; re-doing the resize on the remaining mirror and attach mirror and reboot. Dowtime reduced to a reboot times. Yes, you can follow same procedure with zfs (details will differ of course). You can actually change the partitions while you're using the slice. But after changing the size of both slices you may need to reboot I've used it also when going from ufs to zfs for boot. But the OP wants to decrease a slice size which if it would work at all could lead to loss of data. You can't decrease the size of a root pool this way (or any way, right now). This is just a specific case of bug 4852783 (reduce pool capacity). A fix for this is underway, but is not yet available. Lori ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS iSCSI Clustered for VMware Host use
I've been looking to build my own cheap SAN to explore HA scenarios with VMware hosts, though not for a production environment. I'm new to opensolaris but I am familiar with other clustered HA systems. The features of ZFS seem like they would fit right in with attempting to build an HA storage platform for VMware hosts on inexpensive hardware. Here is what I am thinking. I want to have at least two clustered nodes (may be virtual running off the local storage of the VMware host) that act as the front end of the SAN. These will not have any real storage themselves, but will be initiators for backend computers with the actual disks in them. I want to be able to add and remove/replace at will so I figure the backends will just be fairly dumb iSCSI targets that just present each disk. That way the front ends are close to the hardware for zfs to work best but would not limit a raid set to the capacity of a single enclosure. I'd like to present a RAIDZ2 array as a block device to VMware, how would that work? Could that then be clustered so the iSCSI target is HA? Am I completely off base or is there an easier way? My goal is to be able to kill any one box (or multiple) and still keep the storage available for VMware, but still get a better total storage to usable ratio than just a plain mirror (2:1). I also want to be able to add and remove storage dynamically. You know, champagne on a beer budget. :) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS iSCSI Clustered for VMware Host use
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Jason wheelz...@hotmail.com wrote: I've been looking to build my own cheap SAN to explore HA scenarios with VMware hosts, though not for a production environment. I'm new to opensolaris but I am familiar with other clustered HA systems. The features of ZFS seem like they would fit right in with attempting to build an HA storage platform for VMware hosts on inexpensive hardware. Here is what I am thinking. I want to have at least two clustered nodes (may be virtual running off the local storage of the VMware host) that act as the front end of the SAN. These will not have any real storage themselves, but will be initiators for backend computers with the actual disks in them. I want to be able to add and remove/replace at will so I figure the backends will just be fairly dumb iSCSI targets that just present each disk. That way the front ends are close to the hardware for zfs to work best but would not limit a raid set to the capacity of a single enclosure. I'd like to present a RAIDZ2 array as a block device to VMware, how would that work? Could that then be clustered so the iSCSI target is HA? Am I completely off base or is there an easier way? My goal is to be able to kill any one box (or multiple) and still keep the storage available for VMware, but still get a better total storage to usable ratio than just a plain mirror (2:1). I also want to be able to add and remove storage dynamically. You know, champagne on a beer budget. :) Any particular reason you want to present block storage to VMware? It works as well, if not better over NFS, and saves a LOT of headaches. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS iSCSI Clustered for VMware Host use
Well, I knew a guy who was involved in a project to do just that for a production environment. Basically they abandoned using that because there was a huge performance hit using ZFS over NFS. I didn’t get the specifics but his group is usually pretty sharp. I’ll have to check back with him. So mainly just to avoid that, but also VMware tends to roll out storage features on NFS last after fibre and iSCSI. *sorry if this is duplicate... Learning the workings of this discussion forum as well* -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS iSCSI Clustered for VMware Host use
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Jason wheelz...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, I knew a guy who was involved in a project to do just that for a production environment. Basically they abandoned using that because there was a huge performance hit using ZFS over NFS. I didn’t get the specifics but his group is usually pretty sharp. I’ll have to check back with him. So mainly just to avoid that, but also VMware tends to roll out storage features on NFS last after fibre and iSCSI. *sorry if this is duplicate... Learning the workings of this discussion forum as well* -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss That's not true at all. Dynamic grow and shrink has been available on NFS forever. You STILL can't shrink vmfs, and they've JUST added grow capabilities. Not to mention it being thin provisioned by default. As for performance, I have a tough time believing his performance issues were because of NFS, and not some other underlying bug. I've got MASSIVE deployments of VMware on NFS over 10g that achieve stellar performance (admittedly, it isn't on zfs). --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS iSCSI Clustered for VMware Host use
Specifically I remember storage vmotion being supported on NFS last as well as jumbo frames. Just the impression I get from past features, perhaps they are doing better with that. I know the performance problem had specifically to do with ZFS and the way it handled something. I know lots of implementations with just straight NFS so I know that works... I'm not opposed to NFS but I was hoping what he saw was just a combination of ZFS over NFS as he said he didn't know if it would happen over iSCSI. So I thought I'd try that first. I'll have to see if I can get the details from him tomorrow. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool scrub started resilver, not scrub
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 02:33:39AM -0500, Albert Chin wrote: # cat /etc/release Solaris Express Community Edition snv_105 X86 Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 15 December 2008 So, why is a resilver in progress when I asked for a scrub? Still seeing the same problem with snv_114. # cat /etc/release Solaris Express Community Edition snv_114 X86 Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 04 May 2009 How do I scrub this pool? -- albert chin (ch...@thewrittenword.com) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS iSCSI Clustered for VMware Host use
On Aug 31, 2009, at 17:29, Tim Cook wrote: I've got MASSIVE deployments of VMware on NFS over 10g that achieve stellar performance (admittedly, it isn't on zfs). Without a separate ZIL device NFS would probably be slower with NFS-- hence why Sun's own appliances use SSDs. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Finding SATA cards for ZFS; was Lundman home NAS
The mv8 is a marvell based chipset, and it appears there are no Solaris drivers for it. There doesn't appear to be any movement from Sun or marvell to provide any either. Do you mean specifically Marvell 6480 drivers? I use both DAC-SATA-MV8 and AOC-SAT2-MV8, which use Marvell MV88SX and works very well in Solaris. (Package SUNWmv88sx). Lund -- Jorgen Lundman | lund...@lundman.net Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Finding SATA cards for ZFS; was Lundman home NAS
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Jorgen Lundman lund...@gmo.jp wrote: The mv8 is a marvell based chipset, and it appears there are no Solaris drivers for it. There doesn't appear to be any movement from Sun or marvell to provide any either. Do you mean specifically Marvell 6480 drivers? I use both DAC-SATA-MV8 and AOC-SAT2-MV8, which use Marvell MV88SX and works very well in Solaris. (Package SUNWmv88sx). Lund -- Jorgen Lundman | lund...@lundman.net Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) Interesting, there was a big thread that this card was in over at hardocp, and they said with 2009.06 it didn't work. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
