On 25/01/2011, at 22.39, Ian Collins wrote:
On 01/26/11 09:50 AM, Lasse Osterild wrote:
I'd go with some Dell MD1200's, for us they ended up being cheaper (incl
disks) than a SuperMicro case with the same model disks, and it's way nicer
than the low-quality SuperMicro stuff.
That's an
fmdump -eV is very verbose and far too long to post here :) Here is a snippet
of a scsi error and a zfs checksum error from the log though.
Jan 20 2011 18:50:16.276742278 ereport.io.scsi.cmd.disk.dev.rqs.merr
nvlist version: 0
class = ereport.io.scsi.cmd.disk.dev.rqs.merr
ena =
I’m wondering if any of the ZIL gurus could examine the following and point out
anywhere my logic is going wrong.
For small backend systems (e.g. 24x10k SAS Raid 10) I’m expecting an absolute
maximum backend write throughput of 1 seq IOPS** and more realistically
2000-5000. With
Those WD20EARS emulate 512 bytes sectors, so yes you can freely mix and match
them with other regular 512 bytes drives. Some have reported slower
read/write speeds but nothing catastrophic.
Or you can create a new 4K aligned pool (composed of only 4K drives!) to really
take advantage of them.
ZIL OPTIONS: Obviously a DDRdrive is the ideal (36k 4k random
IOPS***) but for the same budget I can get 2x Vertex 2 EX 50GB
drives and put each behind it’s own P410 512MB BBWC controller.
The Vertex 2 EX goes for approximately $900 each online, while the
P410/512 BBWC is listed at HP for
On 26 January, 2011 - Benji sent me these 0,8K bytes:
Those WD20EARS emulate 512 bytes sectors, so yes you can freely mix
and match them with other regular 512 bytes drives. Some have
reported slower read/write speeds but nothing catastrophic.
For some workloads, 3x slower than it should be.
If 512B drive is used with 4KiB ashift, there may be a performance lost (as
more data will be pushed and read from the drive).
It not so much the drives are lying, just they don't implement the ATAPI
standard (for SATA) to tell the OS they are really 4KiB drives. A firmware
update would fix this.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Lasse Osterild lass...@unixzone.dk wrote:
On 01/26/11 09:50 AM, Lasse Osterild wrote:
That's an odd comment. I've used a fair bit of SuperMicro kit over the
years and I wouldn't describe any of it as low-quality.
Nothing odd about it - I've had three
Hi all
Is there anything usable for zfs/openindiana that allows for multi-tiered
storage?
The scenario is as thus: We have a 50TB storage unit which was built to be an
archive, but lately, scientists have been using this for a fileserver for
modelling. Pracitaclly, this means 50+ processes
-Original Message-
From: Frank Lahm [mailto:frankl...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 25 January 2011 14:50
To: Ryan John
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Changed ACL behavior in snv_151 ?
John,
welcome onboard!
2011/1/25 Ryan John john.r...@bsse.ethz.ch:
I’m
10 matches
Mail list logo
