I know there's been much discussion on the list lately about getting HW
arrays to use (or not use) their caches in a way that helps ZFS the most.
Just yesterday I started seeing articles on NAND Flash Drives, and I
know other Solid Stae Drive technologies have been around for a while
and many
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Kyle,
Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 5:33:12 PM, you wrote:
KM Remember though that it's been mathematically figured that the
KM disadvantages to RaidZ start to show up after 9 or 10 drives. (That's
Well, nothing like this was proved and definitely not
Patrick P Korsnick wrote:
hi,
i just set up snv_54 on an old p4 celeron system and even tho the processor is
crap, it's got 3 7200RPM HDs: 1 80GB and 2 40GBs. so i'm wondering if there is
an optimal way to lay out the ZFS pool(s) to make this old girl as fast as
possible
as it stands
Richard Elling wrote:
roland wrote:
i have come across an interesting article at :
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2859p=5
Can anyone comment on the claims or conclusions of the article itself?
It seems to me that they are not always clear about what they are
talking about.
Malachi de AElfweald wrote:
1) How do I at least mirror the root partition during install (instead of the
convoluted after-the-fact instructions all over the net)
Use Jumpstart. A profile to install your machine with mirroring should
be pretty short, simple, and easy to create. It will be
can you guess? wrote:
Primarily its checksumming features, since other open source solutions
support simple disk scrubbing (which given its ability to catch most
deteriorating disk sectors before they become unreadable probably has a
greater effect on reliability than checksums in any
can you guess? wrote:
There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
that do what zfs does, period.
No one said that there were: the real issue is that there's not much reason
to care, since the available solutions don't need to be *identical* to offer
*comparable* value (i.e.,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I've used zfs unmount on the pool on my external disk, but while the
filesystems are no longer visible, zpool still shows the pool as
online. I suspect I shouldn't disconnect the external device at this
point (or at least that it's not ideal). What else/other
Bill Moloney wrote:
Taking it out does not impact the immediate function of the pool,
but the inability to re-import it after this event is a significant issue.
Has
anyone found a workaround for this problem ? I have data in a pool that
I cannot import because the separate zil is no longer
Are there, or Does it make any sense to try to find a RAID card with
battery backup that will ignore the ZFS commit commands when the battery
is able to guarantee stable storage?
I don't know if they do this, but I've recently had good non-ZFS
performance with the IBM ServeRAID 8k raid that
Are there, or Does it make any sense to try to find a RAID card with
battery backup that will ignore the ZFS commit commands when the battery
is able to guarantee stable storage?
I don't know if they do this, but I've recently had good non-ZFS
performance with the IBM ServeRAID 8k raid that
Albert Chin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 12:47:37PM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
My primary use case, is NFS base storage to a farm of software build
servers, and developer desktops.
For the above environment, you'll probably see a noticable improvement
with a battery-backed
Carson Gaspar wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
...
I know, but for a that card you need a driver to make it appear as a
device. Plus it would take a PCI slot.
I was hoping to make use of the battery backed ram on a RAID card that I
already have (but can't use since I want to let ZFS do
Albert Chin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:20:30PM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Anyone know the answer to this? I'll be ordering 2 of the 7K's for
my x346's this week. If niether A nor B will work I'm not sure
there's any advantage to using the 7k card considering I want ZFS to
do
Erik Trimble wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Albert Chin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:20:30PM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Anyone know the answer to this? I'll be ordering 2 of the 7K's for
my x346's this week. If niether A nor B will work I'm not sure
there's any advantage
Albert Chin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:59:18AM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
... With the 256MB doing write caching, is there any further benefit
to moving thte ZIL to a flash or other fast NV storage?
Do some tests with/without ZIL enabled. You should see a big
difference
Albert Shih wrote:
What's kind of pool you use with 46 disk ? (46=2*23 and 23 is prime number
that's mean I can make raidz with 6 or 7 or any number of disk).
Depending on needs for space vs. performance, I'd probably pixk eithr
5*9 or 9*5, with 1 hot spare.
-Kyle
Regards.
--
Gregory Perry wrote:
Hello,
I have a Dell 2950 with a Perc 5/i, two 300GB 15K SAS drives in a RAID0
array. I am considering going to ZFS and I would like to get some feedback
about which situation would yield the highest performance: using the Perc
5/i to provide a hardware RAID0 that
Vincent Fox wrote:
When Sun starts selling good SAS JBOD boxes equipped with appropriate
redundancies and a flash-drive or 2 for the ZIL I will definitely go that
route. For now I have a bunch of existing Sun HW RAID arrays so I make use
of them mainly to make sure I can package LUNs and
Vincent Fox wrote:
So the point is, a JBOD with a flash drive in one (or two to mirror the ZIL)
of the slots would be a lot SIMPLER.
We've all spent the last decade or two offloading functions into specialized
hardware, that has turned into these massive unneccessarily complex things.
I
John-Paul Drawneek wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent Fox wrote:
| So the point is, a JBOD with a flash drive in one
(or two to mirror
the ZIL) of the slots would be a lot SIMPLER.
I guess a USB pendrive would be slower than a
harddisk. Bad performance
for the
Andy Lubel wrote:
With my (COTS) LSI 1068 and 1078 based controllers I get consistently
better performance when I export all disks as jbod (MegaCli -
CfgEachDskRaid0).
Is that really 'all disks as JBOD'? or is it 'each disk as a single
drive RAID0'?
It may not sound different on the
Richard Elling wrote:
Nick wrote:
I have been tasked with putting together a storage solution for use in a
virtualization setup, serving NFS, CIFS, and iSCSI, over GigE. I've
inherited a few components to work with:
x86 dual core server , 512MB LSI-ELP RAID card
12 x
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would such snapshots appear and where? (Again, I disliked the file;X
notation and the fact that a manual purge was required).
I agree about the ';x'
However (and I don't know what the patents are in this area.) Something
like what clearcase does (an invisible
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would such snapshots appear and where? (Again, I disliked the
file;X
notation and the fact that a manual purge was required).
I agree about the ';x'
However (and I don't know what the patents are in this area
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:33:13AM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would such snapshots appear and where? (Again, I disliked the
file;X
notation and the fact
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:57:12PM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Make it an extended attribute called .zfs/snapshot/.
Maybe I'm not up on how extended attributes work, but I don't see how
that would let you review all
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:31:09PM -0600, Chris Kirby wrote:
Er, good question! I think the shells would have to support it. A good
question for Roland :)
The shells don't actually have to care:
$ cd /tmp
$ touch f1
$ runat f1 sh
I know that
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 13:43 -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
How was it MVFS could do this without any changes to the shells or any
other programs?
I ClearCase could 'grep FOO /dir1/dir2/file@@/main/*' to see which
version of 'file' added FOO.
(I think
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 13:43 -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
How was it MVFS could do this without any changes to the shells or
any other programs?
I ClearCase could 'grep FOO /dir1/dir2/file@@/main/*' to see which
Hi all,
Can anyone explain to me, or point me to any docs that explain how the
following numbers map together?
I have multiple LUNS exported to my HBA's from multiple EMC arrays.
zpool status, and /dev/dsk show device names like:
c0t600604838794003753594D333837d0 ONLINE 0
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Sachin Palav wrote:
Hello Friends,
Can some please let me know how I can disable ZFS ACL completely. I want to use
ZFS with plain unix permission without ACL support
I'm really curious as to why you want to do that but it seems that ZFS
allows you to do so.
I seem to be having a problem mounting the filesystems on my machine,
and I suspect it's due to the order of processing of /etc/vfstab vs. ZFS
mount properties.
I have a UFS /export, then I have a ZFS that mounts on /export/OSImages.
In that ZFS I have a couple of directories with many .ISO
Volker A. Brandt wrote:
Hello Kyle!
All of these mounts are failing at bootup with messages about
non-existent mountpoints. My guess is that it's because when /etc/vfstab
is running, the ZFS '/export/OSImages' isn't mounted yet?
Yes, that is absolutely correct. For details, look
Fred Oliver wrote:
Marion Hakanson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am having trouble destroying a zfs file system (device busy) and
fuser
isn't telling me who has the file open: . . .
This situation appears to occur every night during a system test.
The only
peculiar operation on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume that ZFS quotas are enforced even if the current
size and space free is not included in the user visible 'df'.
Is that not true?
Presumably applications get some unexpected error when the
quota limit is hit since the client OS does not know the real
Marc Bevand wrote:
Overall, like you I am frustrated by the lack of non-RAID inexpensive native
PCI-E SATA controllers.
Why non-raid? Is it cost?
Personally I'm interested in a high port count RAID card, with as much
battery-backed cache RAM as possible, and that can export as many
Orvar Korvar wrote:
Ok, so i make one vdev out of 8 discs. And I combine all vdevs into one large
zpool? Is it correct?
I have 8 port SATA card. I have 4 drives into one zpool. That is one vdev,
right? Now I can add 4 new drives and make them into one zpool. And now I
combine both zpool
Marc Bevand wrote:
Kyle McDonald KMcDonald at Egenera.COM writes:
Marc Bevand wrote:
Overall, like you I am frustrated by the lack of non-RAID inexpensive
native PCI-E SATA controllers.
Why non-raid? Is it cost?
Primarily cost, reliability (less complex hw = less hw
Orvar Korvar wrote:
Ok, that was a very good explanation. Thanx a lot!
So, I have a 8 ports SATA card, and I have one ZFS raid with 4 discs,
500gb each.
These 4 discs are one vdev, right?
Yes you have a pool with 1 4 disk *RAIDZ* type vdev.
And then I can add 4 more discs and create another
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Hi All,
I'm new to ZFS but I'm intrigued by the possibilities
it presents.
I'm told one of the greatest benefits is that,
instead of setting
quotas, each user can have their own 'filesystem'
under a single pool.
This is obviously great if you've got 10 users
Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
I'm not even trying to stripe it across multiple disks, I just want to add
another partition (from the same physical disk) to the root pool. Perhaps
that is a distinction without a difference, but my goal is to grow my root
pool, not stripe it across disks or enable
IBM's website says that Solaris 10u1 has them built in, Shouldn't that
mean they are in sNV too?
I'm booting off the network and off DVD, and just before the installer
starts I get a message about 'no disks found.'
Format does the same thing.
What driver module should be used for the
---BeginMessage---
Jürgen Keil wrote:
Is there some way to get more insight into what is going on here?
Thanks for the pointers.
I've included the output below.
I suspect this is something ZFS specific, since it doesn't hang when I
choose UFS root.
So if there are more ZFS specifc kmdb
Richard Elling wrote:
Erik Trimble wrote:
* 5.25 CDROM-form-factor RAM disk, as above
CD-ROMs are dead. With the size of slim DVDs today, you wouldn't
be able to put much space in them.
The point here is a 5.25 half height device, that will fit in a drive
bay that is
michael schuster wrote:
Charles Soto wrote:
On 6/27/08 8:55 AM, Mark J Musante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, wan_jm wrote:
the procedure is follows:
1. mkdir /tank
2. touch /tank/a
3. zpool create tank c0d0p3
this command give the following error
David Magda wrote:
Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the
installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris
is that if dump is not explicitly specified it defaults to swap, yes?
Is there any reason why they should be separate?
I beleive
sanjay nadkarni (Laptop) wrote:
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the
installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris
is that if dump is not
Dan McDonald wrote:
I created a filesystem dedicated to /var/log so I could keep compression on
the logs. Unfortunately, this caused problems at boot time because my log
ZFS dataset couldn't be mounted because /var/log already contained bits.
Some of that, to be fair, could be fixed by
Ross wrote:
Just re-read that and it's badly phrased. What I meant to say is that a
raid-z / raid-5 array based on 500GB drives seems to have around a 1 in 10
chance of loosing some data during a full rebuild.
Actually, I think it's been explained already why this is actually one
Tommaso Boccali wrote:
.. And the answer was yes I hope. we are sriously thinking of buying
48 1 tb disk to replace those in a 1 year old thumper
please confirm it again :)
In my 15 year experience with Sun Products, I've never known one to care
about drive brand, model, or firmware.
Why can't I do this in a ZFS directory?
(I was able to set the group with no problems.)
# chown auser *
chown: DIR1: cannot change owner [Invalid argument]
chown: DIR2: cannot change owner [Invalid argument]
Debugging info:
# id -a
uid=0(root) gid=0(root)
Mario Goebbels wrote:
WOW! This is quite a departure from what we've been
told for the past 2 years...
This must be misinformation.
The reason there's no project (yet) is very likely because pool shrinking
depends strictly on the availability of bp_rewrite functionality, which is
John wrote:
Our enterprise is about 300TB.. maybe a bit more...
You are correct that most of the time we grow and not shrink... however, we
are fairly dynamic and occasionally do shrink. DBA's have been known to be
off on their space requirements/requests.
For the record I agree with
Zlotnick Fred wrote:
On Aug 20, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Kyle McDonald wrote:
My suggestion still remains though. Log your enterprises wish for this
feature through as many channels as you have into Sun. This list, Sales,
Support, every way you can think of. Get it documented, so that when
they go
mike wrote:
Sorry :)
Okay, so you can create a zpool from multiple vdevs. But you cannot
add more vdevs to a zpool once the zpool is created. Is that right?
Nope. That's exactly what you *CAN* do.
So say today you only really need 6TB usable, you could go buy 8 of your
1TB disks,
and setup
mike wrote:
Or do smaller groupings of raidz1's (like 3 disks) so I can remove
them and put 1.5TB disks in when they come out for instance?
I wouldn't reduce it to 3 disks (should almost mirror if you go that low.)
Remember, while you can't take a drive out of a vDev, or a vDev out of a
mike wrote:
On 8/22/08, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZFS boot works fine; it only recently integrated into Nevada, but it
has been in use for quite some time now.
Yeah I got the install option when I installed snv_94 but wound up not
having enough disks to use it.
You
Chris Cosby wrote:
About the best I can see:
zpool create dirtypool raidz 250a 250b 320a raidz 320b 400a 400b raidz
500a 500b 750a
And you have to do them in that order. The zpool will create using the
smallest device. This gets you about 2140GB (500 + 640 + 1000) of
space. Your desired
Daniel Rock wrote:
Kenny schrieb:
2. c6t600A0B800049F93C030A48B3EA2Cd0
SUN-LCSM100_F-0670-931.01GB
/scsi_vhci/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. c6t600A0B800049F93C030D48B3EAB6d0
SUN-LCSM100_F-0670-931.01MB
/scsi_vhci/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disk 2: 931GB
Kenny wrote:
How did you determine from the format output the GB vs MB amount??
Where do you compute 931 GB vs 932 MB from this??
2. c6t600A0B800049F93C030A48B3EA2Cd0 /scsi_vhci/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. c6t600A0B800049F93C030D48B3EAB6d0
/scsi_vhci/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's in the part
Paul Raines wrote:
I am having a very odd problem on one of our ZFS filesystems
On certain files, when accessed on the Solaris server itself locally
where the zfs fs sits, we get an error like the following:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # ls -l
./README: Value too large for defined data type
total 36
Richard Elling wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Eric Schrock wrote:
See:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=73740tstart=0
I must apologize for anoying everyone. When Richard Elling posted the
GreenBytes link without saying
Darren J Moffat wrote:
John Cecere wrote:
The man page for dumpadm says this:
A given ZFS volume cannot be configured for both the swap area and the dump
device.
And indeed when I try to use a zvol as both, I get:
zvol cannot be used as a swap device and a dump device
My question
Douglas R. Jones wrote:
4) I change the auto.ws map thusly:
Integration chekov:/mnt/zfs1/GroupWS/
Upgradeschekov:/mnt/zfs1/GroupWS/
cstools chekov:/mnt/zfs1/GroupWS/
com chekov:/mnt/zfs1/GroupWS
This is standard NFS behavior (prior to NFSv4). Child
Ian Collins wrote:
Stephen Le wrote:
Is it possible to create a custom Jumpstart profile to install Nevada
on a RAID-10 rpool?
No, simple mirrors only.
Though a finish sscript could add additional simple mirrors to create
the config his example would have created.
Pretty sure
kristof wrote:
I don't think this is possible.
I already tried to add extra vdevs after install, but I got an error message
telling me that multiple vdevs for rpool are not allowed.
K
Oh. Ok. Good to know.
I always put all my 'data' diskspace in a separate pool anyway to make
Tim Haley wrote:
Ross wrote:
While it's good that this is at least possible, that looks horribly
complicated to me.
Does anybody know if there's any work being done on making it easy to remove
obsolete
boot environments?
If the clones were promoted at the time of their
Brad Hudson wrote:
Thanks for the response Peter. However, I'm not looking to create a
different boot environment (bootenv). I'm actually looking for a way within
JumpStart to separate out the ZFS filesystems from a new installation to have
better control over quotas and reservations for
On 1/28/2009 12:16 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:07:06AM -0800, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 28, 2009 9:41:20 AM -0600 Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Frank Cusack wrote:
i was wondering if you have a zfs
I jumpstarted my machine with sNV b106, and installed with ZFS root/boot.
It left me at a shell prompt in the JumpStart environment, with my ZFS
root on /a.
I wanted to try out some things that I planned on scripting for the
JumpStart to run, one of these waas creating a new ZFS pool from the
Hi Dave,
Having read through the whole thread, I think there are several things
that could all be adding to your problems.
At least some of which are not related to ZFS at all.
You mentioned the ZFS docs not warning you about this, and yet I know
the docs explictly tell you that:
1. While a
D. Eckert wrote:
too many words wasted, but not a single word, how to restore the data.
I have read the man pages carefully. But again: there's nothing said, that on
USB drives zfs umount pool is not allowed.
It is allowed. But it's not enough. You need to read both the 'zpool '
and
On 2/10/2009 2:50 PM, D. Eckert wrote:
(..)
Dave made a mistake pulling out the drives with out exporting them first.
For sure also UFS/XFS/EXT4/.. doesn't like that kind of operations but only
with ZFS you risk to loose ALL your data.
that's the point!
(...)
I did that many times after
On 2/10/2009 2:54 PM, D. Eckert wrote:
I disagree, see posting above.
ZFS just accepts it 2 or 3 times. after that, your data are passed away to
nirvana for no reason.
And it should be legal, to have an external USB drive with a ZFS. with all
respect, why should a user always care for
On 2/10/2009 3:37 PM, D. Eckert wrote:
(...)
Possibly so. But if you had that ufs/reiserfs on a LVM or on a RAID0
spanning removable drives, you probably wouldn't have been so lucky.
(...)
we are not talking about a RAID 5 array or an LVM. We are talking about a
single FS setup as a zpool over
On 2/10/2009 4:48 PM, Roman V. Shaposhnik wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:49 +1300, Ian Collins wrote:
These posts do sound like someone who is blaming their parents after
breaking a new toy before reading the instructions.
It looks like there's a serious denial of the fact that bad
On 2/11/2009 12:11 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
My understanding is that 1TB is the maximum bootable disk size since
EFI boot is not supported. It is good that you were allowed to use
the larger disk, even if its usable space is truncated.
I don't dispute that, but I don't understand it
On 2/11/2009 12:35 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 11-Feb-09, at 11:19 AM, Tim wrote:
...
And yes, I do keep checksums of all the data sitting on them and
periodically check it. So, for all of your ranting and raving, the
fact remains even a *crappy* filesystem like fat32 manages to handle
a hot
On 2/11/2009 12:57 PM, Tomas Ögren wrote:
On 11 February, 2009 - Kyle McDonald sent me these 1,2K bytes:
On 2/11/2009 12:11 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
My understanding is that 1TB is the maximum bootable disk size since
EFI boot is not supported. It is good that you were allowed
On 2/11/2009 1:03 PM, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Since you can't mix EFI and FDisk partition tables, and you can't have
more than one Solaris fdisk partition (that I'm aware of anyway) it
looks like 1TB is all you can give Solaris at the moment.
I should have qualified that with If you need
On 2/11/2009 1:50 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Solaris can now (as of b105) use extended partitions.
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/pages/2008120301/
That's interesting, but I'm not sure how it helps.
It's my understanding that Solaris doesn't like it if more than one of
On 2/13/2009 5:58 AM, Ross wrote:
huh? but that looses the convenience of USB.
I've used USB drives without problems at all, just remember to zpool export
them before you unplug.
I think there is a subcommand of cfgaadm you should run to to notify
Solariss that you intend to unplug the
On 2/20/2009 9:33 AM, Gary Mills wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 09:59:01AM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
Gary Mills wrote:
Should I file an RFE for this addition to ZFS? The concept would be
to run ZFS on a file server, exporting storage to an application
server where ZFS also runs
Joep Vesseur wrote:
All,
I was wondering why zfs destroy -r is so excruciatingly slow compared to
parallel destroys.
SNIP
while a little handy-work with
# time for i in `zfs list | awk '/blub2\\// {print $1}'` ;\
do ( zfs destroy $i ) ; done
yields
real0m8.191s
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Thommy M. wrote:
In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and
results in uneven system performance.
IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was
faster with compression ON as it didn't have to wait
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Thommy M. wrote:
In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and
results in uneven system performance.
IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that
it was
faster
Hi all,
I'm setting up a new fileserver, and while I'm not planning on enabling
CIFS right away, I know I will in the future.
I know there are several ZFS properties or attributes that affect how
CIFS behaves. I seem to recall that at least one of those needs to be
set early (like when the
Erik Ableson wrote:
Just a side note on the PERC labelled cards: they don't have a JBOD
mode so you _have_ to use hardware RAID. This may or may not be an
issue in your configuration but it does mean that moving disks between
controllers is no longer possible. The only way to do a pseudo
chris wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
What if I wrap the ram in a sheet of lead?;-)
(hopefully the lead itself won't be radioactive)
I've been looking at the same thing recently.
I found these 4 AM3 motherboard with optional ECC memory support. I don't
know whether this means ECC works,
I've started reading up on this, and I know I have alot more reading to
do, but I've already got some questions... :)
I'm not sure yet that it will help for my purposes, but I was
considering buying 2 SSD's for mirrored boot devices anyway.
My main question is: Can a pair of say 60GB SSD's
F. Wessels wrote:
Thanks posting this solution.
But I would like to point out that bug 6574286 removing a slog doesn't work
still isn't resolved. A solution is under it's way, according to George Wilson. But in
the mean time, IF something happens you might be in a lot of trouble. Even without
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:28:38AM -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote:
In my case the slog slice wouldn't be the slog for the root pool, it
would be the slog for a second data pool.
I didn't think you could add a slog to the root pool anyway. Or has
Richard Elling wrote:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:28 AM, Kyle McDonald wrote:
F. Wessels wrote:
Thanks posting this solution.
But I would like to point out that bug 6574286 removing a slog
doesn't work still isn't resolved. A solution is under it's way,
according to George Wilson
Richard Elling wrote:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:28 AM, Kyle McDonald wrote:
F. Wessels wrote:
Thanks posting this solution.
But I would like to point out that bug 6574286 removing a slog
doesn't work still isn't
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:28 AM, Kyle McDonald wrote:
F. Wessels wrote:
Thanks posting this solution.
But I would like to point out that bug 6574286 removing a slog
doesn't
Greg Mason wrote:
I think it is a great idea, assuming the SSD has good write performance.
This one claims up to 230MB/s read and 180MB/s write and it's only $196.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609393
Compared to this one (250MB/s read and 170MB/s write)
Adam Sherman wrote:
In the context of a low-volume file server, for a few users, is the
low-end Intel SSD sufficient?
You're right, it supposedly has less than half the the write speed, and
that probably won't matter for me, but I can't find a 64GB version of it
for sale, and the 80GB
Tristan Ball wrote:
It just so happens I have one of the 128G and two of the 32G versions in
my drawer, waiting to go into our DR disk array when it arrives.
Hi Tristan,
Just so I can be clear, What model/brand are the drives you were testing?
-Kyle
I dropped the 128G into a spare
Michael McCandless wrote:
I've read in numerous threads that it's important to use ECC RAM in a
ZFS file server.
My question is: is there any technical reason, in ZFS's design, that
makes it particularly important for ZFS to require ECC RAM?
I think, basically the idea is, that if you're
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
