the start and end of two member disks (and possibly some
data). I assume that if I could have restored the lost metadata I could
have recovered most of the real data.
Thanks
Scott
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
Hi Saso,
thanks for your reply.
If all disks are the same, is the root pointer the same?
Also, is there a signature or something unique to the root block that I can
search for on the disk? I'm going through the On-disk specification at the
moment.
Scott
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:02:58AM
Thanks again Saso,
at least I have closure :)
Scott
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:24:55AM +0200, Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
On 08/13/2012 10:45 AM, Scott wrote:
Hi Saso,
thanks for your reply.
If all disks are the same, is the root pointer the same?
No.
Also, is there a signature
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:40:45AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:24 AM, Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
On 08/13/2012 10:45 AM, Scott wrote:
Hi Saso,
thanks for your reply.
If all disks are the same, is the root pointer the same?
No.
Also
the labels using the infomration from the 3
valid disks?
Thanks
Scott
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
recovery is a bonus.
If anyone is keen, I have enabled SSH into the Open Indiana box
which I'm using to try and recovery the pool, so if you'd like to take a shot
please let me know.
Thanks in advance,
Scott
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
root@openindiana-01:/mnt# zpool scrub ZP-8T-RZ1-01
cannot scrub 'ZP-8T-RZ1-01': pool is currently unavailable
Thanks for your tenacity Stefan.
Scott
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs
and then you can 'zpool replace'
the
new disk into the pool perhaps?
Gregg Wonderly
On 6/16/2012 2:02 AM, Scott Aitken wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 08:54:05AM +0200, Stefan Ring wrote:
when you say remove the device, I assume you mean simply make it
unavailable
for import (I
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 09:58:40AM -0500, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Scott Aitken wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 09:09:53AM -0500, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
Use 'dd' to replicate as much of lofi/2 as you can onto another device,
and then
cable that into place
the device, rather
than saying it has corrupted data.
It's interesting that even though 4 of the 5 disks are available, it still
can import it as DEGRADED.
Thanks again.
Scott
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:56:43AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:46:00PM +1000, Scott Aitken wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Scott. :-)
I have a 5 drive RAIDZ volume with data that I'd like to recover.
Yeah, still..
I tried using Jeff Bonwick's labelfix binary
if some wonderful
person wants to poke around. If I lose the data that's ok, but it'd be nice
to know all avenues were tried before I delete the 9TB of images (I need the
space...)
Many thanks,
Scott
zfs-list at thismonkey dot com
___
zfs-discuss mailing
Did you 4k align your partition table and is ashift=12?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
,
Scott.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 13/06/11 10:28 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Scott Lawson
scott.law...@manukau.ac.nz wrote:
I have an interesting question that may or may not be answerable from some
internal
ZFS semantics.
This is really standard Unix filesystem semantics.
I
licensing. So it is bye bye Sun Messaging
Server for us.
2011-06-13 1:14, Scott Lawson пишет:
Hi All,
I have an interesting question that may or may not be answerable from
some internal
ZFS semantics.
I have a Sun Messaging Server which has 5 ZFS based email stores. The
Sun Messaging server
uses
I don't disagree that zfs is the better choice, but...
Seriously though. UFS is dead. It has no advantage
over ZFS that I'm aware
of.
When it comes to dumping and restoring filesystems, there is still no official
replacement for the ufsdump and ufsrestore. The discussion has been had
Hi,
Took me a couple of minutes to find the download for this in my Oracle
support. Search
for the patch like this .
Patches and Updates Panel - Patch Search - Patch Name or Number is :
10275731
Pretty easy really.
Scott.
PS. I found that patch by using product or family equals x2100
burst a mighty flame.
-Dante Alighieri
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Scott Meilicke
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs
Hello Peter,
Read the ZFS Best Practices Guide to start. If you still have questions, post
back to the list.
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#Storage_Pool_Performance_Considerations
-Scott
On Oct 13, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Peter Taps wrote:
Folks,
If I
, while writes to the
ZIL/SLOG will be more random (in order to commit quickly)?
Scott Meilicke
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
.
At some point you have to rely on your backups for the unexpected and
unforeseen. Make sure they are good!
Michael, nice reliability write up!
--
Scott Meilicke
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org
@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Scott Meilicke
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Scott Meilicke
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
, before it got corrupted by your
system, happens to be saved somewhere else before it reached your system.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Scott Meilicke
Has it been running long? Initially the numbers are way off. After a while
it settles down into something reasonable.
How many disks, and what size, are in your raidz2?
-Scott
On 9/29/10 8:36 AM, LIC mesh licm...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any way to stop a resilver?
We gotta stop
in) and restarts.
Never gets past 0.00% completion, and K resilvered on any LUN.
64 LUNs, 32x5.44T, 32x10.88T in 8 vdevs.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Scott Meilicke
scott.meili...@craneaerospace.com wrote:
Has it been running long? Initially the numbers are way off. After
before you do it :). Although stopping a scrub is pretty
innocuous.
-Scott
On 9/29/10 9:22 AM, LIC mesh licm...@gmail.com wrote:
You almost have it - each iSCSI target is made up of 4 of the raidz vdevs - 4
* 6 = 24 disks.
16 targets total.
We have one LUN with status of UNAVAIL but didn't
insights.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I should add I have 477 snapshots across all files systems. Most of them are
hourly snaps (225 of them anyway).
On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Scott Meilicke wrote:
This must be resliver day :)
I just had a drive failure. The hot spare kicked in, and access to the pool
over NFS
://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
--
Scott Meilicke | Enterprise Systems Administrator | Crane Aerospace
Electronics | +1 425-743-8153 | M: +1 206-406-2670
We value your opinion! How may we serve you better
Brilliant. I set those parameters via /etc/system, rebooted, and the pool
imported with just the f switch. I had seen this as an option earlier,
although not that thread, but was not sure it applied to my case.
Scrub is running now. Thank you very much!
-Scott
On 9/23/10 7:07 PM, David
,
although not that thread, but was not sure it applied to my case.
Scrub is running now. Thank you very much!
-Scott
Update: The scrub finished with zero errors.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
, as seen by ls -l:
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root4 Sep 27 09:14 scott
crwxr-xr-x 9 root root 0, 0 Sep 20 11:51 scott2
Notice the 'c' vs. 'd' at the beginning of the permissions list. I had been
fiddling with permissions last week, then had problems with a kernel panic.
Perhaps this is related?
Any
On 9/27/10 9:56 AM, Victor Latushkin victor.latush...@oracle.com wrote:
On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Scott Meilicke wrote:
I am running nexenta CE 3.0.3.
I have a file system that at some point in the last week went from a
directory per 'ls -l' to a special character device
When I do the calculations, assuming 300bytes per block to be conservative,
with 128K blocks, I get 2.34G of cache (RAM, L2ARC) per Terabyte of deduped
data. But block size is dynamic, so you will need more than this.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
the process, delete the deduped file system (your copy target), and
create a new file system without dedupe to see if that is any better?
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
, they will dedupe.
I am not sure why reporting is not done at the file system level. It may be an
accounting issue, i.e. which file system owns the dedupe blocks. But it seems
some fair estimate could be made. Maybe the overhead to keep a file system
updated with these stats is too high?
-Scott
CPU penalty as well. My four
core (1.86GHz xeons, 4 yrs old) box nearly maxes out when putting a lot of data
into a deduped file system.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
before Oracle's cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my decision.
Us too. :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Are there other file systems underneath daten/backups that have snapshots?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Another data point - I used three 15K disks striped using my RAID controller as
a slog for the zil, and performance went down. I had three raidz sata vdevs
holding the data, and my load was VMs, i.e. a fair amount of small, random IO
(60% random, 50% write, ~16k in size).
Scott
If these files are deduped, and there is not a lot of RAM on the machine, it
can take a long, long time to work through the dedupe portion. I don't know
enough to know if that is what you are experiencing, but it could be the
problem.
How much RAM do you have?
Scott
--
This message posted
At this point, I will repeat my recommendation about
using
zpool-in-files as a backup (staging) target.
Depending where you
ost, and how you combine the files, you can achieve
these scenarios
without clunkery, and with all the benefits a zpool
provides.
This is another good scheme.
I
would be nice if i could pipe the zfs send stream to
a split and then
send of those splitted stream over the
network to a remote system. it would help sending it
over to remote
system quicker. can your tool do that?
something like this
s | - | j
-
if, for example, the network pipe is bigger then one
unsplitted stream
of zfs send | zfs recv then splitting it to multiple
streams should
optimize the network bandwidth, shouldn't it ?
Well, I guess so. But I wonder, what is the bottle neck here. If it is the
rate at which zfs send
evik wrote:
Reading this list for a while made it clear that zfs send is not a
backup solution, it can be used for cloning the filesystem to a backup
array if you are consuming the stream with zfs receive so you get
notified immediately about errors. Even one bitflip will render the
stream
For quite some time I have been using zfs send -R fsn...@snapname | dd
of=/dev/rmt/1ln to make a tape backup of my zfs file system. A few weeks back
the size of the file system grew to larger than would fit on a single DAT72
tape, and I once again searched for a simple solution to allow
.
On 6/28/2010 11:26 AM, Tristram Scott wrote:
[snip]
Tristram
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu
ss
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Look again at how XenServer does storage. I think you will find it already has
a solution, both for iSCSI and NFS.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
for this assertion, so I may be
completely wrong.
I assume your hardware is recent, the controllers are on PCIe x4 buses, etc.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
ONLINE 0 0 0
|c10t3d6 ONLINE 0 0 0
|spares
| c10t3d7AVAIL
|_
Is ZFS dependent on the order of the drives? Will this cause any issue down
the road? Thank you all;
Scott
Price? I cannot find it.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
for your live data, another to access the
historical data.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
iSCSI writes require a sync to disk for every write. SMB writes get cached in
memory, therefore are much faster.
I am not sure why it is so slow for reads.
Have you tried comstar iSCSI? I have read in these forums that it is faster.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
VMware will properly handle sharing a single iSCSI volume across multiple ESX
hosts. We have six ESX hosts sharing the same iSCSI volumes - no problems.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
!
Scott
Using ZFS Dedup is an interesting way of doing this. However archiving
the result may be hard. If you use different datasets (FS's) for each
backup, can you only send 1 dataset at a time (since you can only
snapshot on a dataset level? Won't that 'undo' the deduping?
If you
At the time we had it setup as 3 x 5 disk raidz, plus a hot spare. These 16
disks were in a SAS cabinet, and the the slog was on the server itself. We are
now running 2 x 7 raidz2 plus a hot spare and slog, all inside the cabinet.
Since the disks are 1.5T, I was concerned about resliver times
.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
as a target for Doubletake, so it only saw write IO, with
very little read. My load testing using iometer was very positive, and I would
not have hesitated to use it as the primary node serving about 1000 users,
maybe 200-300 active at a time.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
a ZVOL from rpool (on fast 15k rpm drives) as a cache device
for another pool (on slower 7.2k rpm drives). It worked great up until it
hit the race condition and hung the system. It would have been nice if zfs
had issued a warning, or at least if this fact was better documented.
Scott Duckworth
of performance do you need? Maybe raidz2 will give you the
performance you need. Maybe not. Measure the performance of each configuration
and decide for yourself. I am a big fan of iometer for this type of work.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
One of the reasons I am investigating solaris for
this is sparse volumes and dedupe could really help
here. Currently we use direct attached storage on
the dom0s and allocate an LVM to the domU on
creation. Just like your example above, we have lots
of those 80G to start with please
?
Hopefully your switches support NIC aggregation?
The only issue I have had on 2009.06 using iSCSI (I had a windows VM directly
attaching to an iSCSI 4T volume) was solved and back ported to 2009.06 (bug
6794994).
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
I was planning to mirror them - mainly in the hope that I could hot swap a new
one in the event that an existing one started to degrade. I suppose I could
start with one of each and convert to a mirror later although the prospect of
losing either disk fills me with dread.
You do not need to
Apple users have different expectations regarding data loss than Solaris and
Linux users do.
Come on, no Apple user bashing. Not true, not fair.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
volume, no security.
Not quite a one liner. After you create the target once (step 3), you do not
have to do that again for the next volume. So three lines.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
Greg, I am using NetBackup 6.5.3.1 (7.x is out) with fine results. Nice and
fast.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
of whichever main backup software you use.
That's it. You backup data using Amanda/Bacula/et al onto tape. You
backup your boot/root filesystem using 'zfs send' onto the USB key.
Erik, great! I never thought of the USB key to store an rpool copy. I will give
it a go on my test box.
Scott
You might have to force the import with -f.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
.
Here is the ZFS best practices guide, which should help with this decision:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide
Read that, then come back with more questions.
Best,
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
.
Thanks,
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Sure, but that will put me back into the original situation.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
That is likely it. I create the volume using 2009.06, then later upgraded to
124. I just now created a new zvol, connected it to my windows server,
formatted, and added some data. Then I snapped the zvol, cloned the snap, and
used 'pfexec sbdadm create-lu'. When presented to the windows server,
I plan on filing a support request with Sun, and will try to post back with any
results.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs
, my server Gallardo can see the LUN, but like I said, it looks
blank to the OS. I suspect the 'sbdadm create-lu' phase.
Any help to get Windows to see it as a LUN with NTFS data would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
'conversation', but the LAG
setup will determine how a conversation is defined.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
It looks like there is not a free slot for a hot spare? If that is the case,
then it is one more factor to push towards raidz2, as you will need time to
remove the failed disk and insert a new one. During that time you don't want to
be left unprotected.
--
This message posted from
[Cross-posting to ldoms-discuss]
We are occasionally seeing massive time-to-completions for I/O requests on ZFS
file systems on a Sun T5220 attached to a Sun StorageTek 2540 and a Sun J4200,
and using a SSD drive as a ZIL device. Primary access to this system is via
NFS, and with NFS COMMITs
No errors reported on any disks.
$ iostat -xe
extended device statistics errors ---
devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b s/w h/w trn tot
vdc0 0.65.6 25.0 33.5 0.0 0.1 17.3 0 2 0 0 0 0
vdc1 78.1 24.4
Thus far there is no evidence that there is anything wrong with your
storage arrays, or even with zfs. The problem seems likely to be
somewhere else in the kernel.
Agreed. And I tend to think that the problem lays somewhere in the LDOM
software. I mainly just wanted to get some experienced
writes. That same server can only consume about 22 MBps using an artificial
load designed to simulate my VM activity (using iometer). So it varies greatly
depending upon Y.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing
protection.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
It does 'just work', however you may have some file and/or file system
corruption if the snapshot was taken at the moment that your mac is updating
some files. So use the time slider function and take a lot of snaps. :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
about losing power and having the X25
RAM cache disappear during a write.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
If the 7310s can meet your performance expectations, they sound much better
than a pair of x4540s. Auto-fail over, SSD performance (although these can be
added to the 4540s), ease of management, and a great front end.
I haven't seen if you can use your backup software with the 7310s, but from
nothing to do with ZFS' zil usage.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
. Same for NFS. I
see no ZIL activity using rsync, for an example of a network file transfer that
does not require sync.
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org
upgrade to the latest dev release fixed the problem for me.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I have a repeatable test case for this indecent.Every time I access my ZFS
cifs shared file system with Adobe Photoshop elements 6.0 via my Vista
workstation the OpenSolaris server stops serving CIFS. The share functions as
expected for all other CIFS operations.
-Begin
Excellent! That worked just fine. Thank you Victor.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
. Any ideas why I am
getting the import error?
Thanks,
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I don't think so. But, you can clone at the ZFS level, and then just use the
vmdk(s) that you need. As long as you don't muck about with the other stuff in
the clone, the space usage should be the same.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
ago, I
have had no problems.
Again, I don't know if this would fix your problem, but it may be worth a try.
Just don't upgrade your ZFS version, and you will be able to roll back to
2009.06 at any time.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Interesting. We must have different setups with our PERCs. Mine have
always auto rebuilt.
--
Scott Meilicke
On Oct 22, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
sola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
Replacing failed disks is easy when PERC is doing the RAID. Just
remove
the failed drive and replace
Thank you Bob and Richard. I will go with A, as it also keeps things simple.
One physical device per pool.
-Scott
On 10/20/09 6:46 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
The ZIL device will never require more space than RAM
Thanks Ed. It sounds like you have run in this mode? No issues with
the perc?
--
Scott Meilicke
On Oct 20, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
sola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
System:
Dell 2950
16G RAM
16 1.5T SATA disks in a SAS chassis hanging off of an LSI 3801e, no
extra drive slots
to using the regular pool for the ZIL,
correct? Assuming this is correct, a mirror would be to preserve performance
during a failure?
Thanks everyone, this has been really helpful.
-Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing
with a good one, and the PERC will rebuild
automatically. But are you talking about OpenSolaris managed RAID? I am pretty
sure, but not tested, that in pseudo JBOD mode (each disk a raid 0 or 1), the
PERC would still present a replaced disk to the OS without reconfiguring the
PERC BIOS.
Scott
, I am
leaning towards option C. Any gotchas I should be aware of?
Thanks,
Scott
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
1 - 100 of 286 matches
Mail list logo
