On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Jim Klimov wrote:
I've heard a claim that ZFS relies too much on RAM caching, but
implements no sort of priorities (indeed, I've seen no knobs to
tune those) - so that if the storage box receives many different
types of IO requests with different "administrative weights" in
I tried the zpool replace on the failed drive. It returned an I/O error so I am
assuming that is confirmation that the drive is indeed dead. I'll visit the
data center to night and swap it out. Thanks for everybody's help!
- Original Message -
From: "Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadl
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Enda o'Connor - Oracle Ireland -
>
> Say I have an ldoms guest that is using zfs root pool that is mirrored,
> and the two sides of the mirror are coming from two separate vds
> servers, that i
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>
> this is
> the part I am not certain about - it is roughly as cheap to READ the
> gzip-9 datasets as it is to read lzjb (in terms of CPU decompression).
Nope. I know LZJB is not
Hi
Say I have an ldoms guest that is using zfs root pool that is mirrored,
and the two sides of the mirror are coming from two separate vds
servers, that is
mirror-0
c3d0s0
c4d0s0
where c3d0s0 is served by one vds server, and c4d0s0 is served by
another vds server.
Now if for some reaso
I've heard a claim that ZFS relies too much on RAM caching, but
implements no sort of priorities (indeed, I've seen no knobs to
tune those) - so that if the storage box receives many different
types of IO requests with different "administrative weights" in
the view of admins, it can not really thr
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:42:21AM +0100, Grégory Giannoni wrote:
>
> Le 29 nov. 2012 à 09:27, Pasi Kärkkäinen a écrit :
> >> The LSI 9240-4I was not able to connect to the 25-drives bay ; Not tested
> >> LSI 9260-16I or LSI 9280-24i.
> >>
> >
> > What was the problem connecting LSI 9240-4i to
Le 29 nov. 2012 à 09:27, Pasi Kärkkäinen a écrit :
>> The LSI 9240-4I was not able to connect to the 25-drives bay ; Not tested
>> LSI 9260-16I or LSI 9280-24i.
>>
>
> What was the problem connecting LSI 9240-4i to the 25-drives bay?
>
The 25-drives backplane needs two SFF-8087 (multilane ca
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 08:52:06AM +0100, Grégory Giannoni wrote:
>
> The LSI 9240-4I was not able to connect to the 25-drives bay ; Not tested
> LSI 9260-16I or LSI 9280-24i.
>
What was the problem connecting LSI 9240-4i to the 25-drives bay?
-- Pasi
