hopefully the lead itself won't be radioactive)
Or the chips themselves don't have some alpha particle generation. It
has happened and from premium vendors
There is no replacement for good system design :)
khb...@gmail.com
Sent from my iPod
I had a 32 bit zfs server up for months with no such issue
Performance is not great but it's no buggier than anything else. War
stories from the initial zfs drops notwithstanding
khb...@gmail.com | keith.bier...@quantum.com
Sent from my iPod
On Jun 15, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Orvar Korvar
On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:44 AM 1/6/, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
but catting /dev/zero to a file in the pool now f
Do you get the same sort of results from /dev/random?
I wouldn't be surprised if /dev/zero turns out to be a special case.
Indeed, using any of the special files is probably not ideal.
On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:12 AM 1/6/, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Keith Bierman wrote:
Do you get the same sort of results from /dev/random?
/dev/random is very slow and should not be used for benchmarking.
Not directly, no. But copying from /dev/random to a real file
On Nov 10, 2008, at 4:47 AM, Vikash Gupta wrote:
Hi Parmesh,
Looks like this tender specification meant for Veritas.
How do you handle this particular clause ?
Shall provide Centralized, Cross platform, Single console management
GUI
Does it really make sense to have a discussion like
On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM 10/10/, David Magda wrote:
If someone finds themselves in this position, what advice can be
followed to minimize risks?
Can you ask for two LUNs on different physical SAN devices and have
an expectation of getting it?
--
Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL
On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:27 PM 10/8/, Jim Dunham wrote:
, a single Solaris node can not be both
the primary and secondary node.
If one wants this type of mirror functionality on a single node, use
host based or controller based mirroring software.
If one is running multiple zones, couldn't
On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Write performance to SSDs is not all it is cracked up to be. Buried
in the AnandTech writeup, there is mention that while 4K can be
written at once, 512KB needs to be erased at once. This means that
write performance to an empty device
On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Keith Bierman wrote:
written at once, 512KB needs to be erased at once. This means that
write performance to an empty device will seem initially pretty
good,
but then it will start to suffer as 512KB regions need
On Aug 28, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The old FORTRAN code
either had to be ported or new code written from scratch.
Assuming it WAS written in FORTRAN there is no reason to believe it
wouldn't just compile with a modern Fortran compiler. I've often run
codes originally
On Aug 27, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
In my pile of broken parts, I have devices
which fail to indicate an unrecoverable read, yet do indeed suffer
from forgetful media.
A long time ago, in a hw company long since dead and buried, I spent
some months trying to find an
On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
than a private copy. I wouldn't expect that to have too big an
impact (I
On a SPARC CMT (Niagara 1+) based system wouldn't that be likely to
have a large impact?
--
Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank
5430
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Keith Bierman wrote:
On a SPARC CMT (Niagara 1+) based system wouldn't that be likely to have a
large impact?
UltraSPARC T1 has no hardware SHA256 so I wouldn't expect any real change
from running the private
On Jul 9, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Miles Nordin wrote:
ah == Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ah I've had bad experiences with the Seagate products.
I've had bad experiences with all of them.
(maxtor, hgst, seagate, wd)
ah My guess is that it's related to duty cycle -
Recently
On Jul 8, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
much fun for people who want to hide costs. For example, some bright
manager decided that they should charge $100/month/port for ethernet
drops. So now, instead of having a centralized, managed network with
well defined port mappings,
On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Miles Nordin wrote:
I don't think it's overrated at all. People all around me are using
this dynamic_pager right now, and they just reboot when they see too
many pinwheels. If they are ``quite happy,'' it's not with their
pager.
I often exist in a sea of mac
On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Miles Nordin wrote:
unplanned power outage that
happens after fsync returns
Aye, but isn't that the real rub ... when the power fails after the
write but *before* the fsync has occurred...
--
Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank
5430
On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
Or to put it another way: disk space is a permanent commitment,
servers are not.
In the olden times (e.g. 1980s) on various CDC and Univac timesharing
services, I recall there being two kinds of storage ... dayfiles
and permanent
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:58 PM 6/5/, Brad Diggs wrote:
Hi Keith,
Sure you can truncate some files but that effectively corrupts
the files in our case and would cause more harm than good. The
only files in our volume are data files.
So an rm is ok, but a truncation is not?
Seems odd to
On Jun 4, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 11:52 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
but we got one server in
where 4 of the 8 drives failed in the first two months, at which
point we called Seagate and they were happy to swap out all 8 drives
for us. I suspect a
On Jun 2, 2008, at 3:24 AM 6/2/, Erik Trimble wrote:
Keith Bierman wrote:
On May 30, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
The only drawback of the older Socket 940 Opterons is that they
don't
support the hardware VT extensions, so running a Windows guest
under xVM
on them isn't
On May 30, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
The only drawback of the older Socket 940 Opterons is that they don't
support the hardware VT extensions, so running a Windows guest
under xVM
on them isn't currently possible.
From the VirtualBox manual, page 11
• No hardware
On May 30, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Craig Smith wrote:
The tough thing is trying to make this fit
well in a Windows world.
If you hang all the disks off the OpenSolaris system directly, and
export via CIFS ... isn't it just a NAS box from the windows
perspective? If so, how is it any harder to
On May 30, 2008, at 6:49 AM 5/30/, Craig J Smith wrote:
It also should be noted that I am
having to run on Solaris and not Opensolaris due to adaptec
am79c973 scsi
driver issues in Opensolaris.
Well that is probably a showstopper then, since the in-kernel support
isn't in the
On May 28, 2008, at 10:27 AM 5/28/, Richard Elling wrote:
Since the mechanics are the same, the difference is in the electronics
In my very distant past, I did QA work for an electronic component
manufacturer. Even parts which were identical were expected to
behave quite differently ...
On May 20, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
,,,
It may be that you confuse the term work in trying to extend it
in a wrong way.
...many wise words elided...
Not being a lawyer, and this not being a Legal forum ... can we leave
license
On May 14, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Todd E. Moore wrote:
I'm working with a group who is designing an application that
distributes redundant copies of their data across multiple server
nodes; something akin to RAIS (redundant array of independent
servers).
That part sounds good.
Within the
On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Maurice Volaski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have 16 disks in RAID 5 and I'm not worried.
I'm sure you're already aware, but if not, 22 drives in a raid-6 is
absolutely SUICIDE when using SATA disks. 12 disks is
On Apr 15, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Keith Bierman wrote:
Perhaps providing the computations rather than the conclusions
would be more persuasive on a technical list ;
No doubt. The computations depend considerably on the size of the
disk drives
On Apr 9, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
I'm just thinking out loud. What would be the advantage of having
periodic snapshot taken within ZFS vs invoking it from an external
facility?
I suspect that the people requesting this really want a unified
management tool (GUI and possibly
On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:46 PM, David Loose wrote:
my Solaris samba shares never really played well with iTunes.
Another approach might be to stick with Solaris on the server, and
run netatalk netatalk.sourceforge.net instead of SAMBA (or, you
know your macs can speak NFS ;).
--
Keith H.
31 matches
Mail list logo
