basically you would add ZFS redundancy level, if you want to be
protected from silent data corruption (data corruption that could
occur somewhere along the IO path)
- XP12000 has all the features to protect from hardware failure (no-SPOF)
- ZFS has all the feature to protect from silent data
Seconded. Redundant controllers means you get one controller that
locks them both up, as much as it means you've got backup.
Best Regards,
Jason
On Mar 21, 2007 4:03 PM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JS wrote:
I'd definitely prefer owning a sort of SAN solution that would basically
So, if your array is something big like an HP XP12000, you wouldn't just make a
zpool of one big LUN (LUSE volume), you'd split it in two and make a mirror
when creating the zpool?
If the array has redundancy built in, you're suggesting to add another layer of
redundancy using ZFS on top of
Jeff,
This is great information. Thanks for sharing.
Quickio is almost required if you want vxfs with Oracle. We ran a
benchmark a few years back and found that vxfs is fairly cache hungry
and ufs with directio beats vxfs without quickio hands down.
Take a look at what mpstat says on xcalls.
I thought I'd share some lessons learned testing Oracle APS on Solaris 10 using
ZFS as backend storage. I just got done running 2 months worth of performance
tests on a v490 (32GB/4x1.8Ghz dual core proc system with 2xSun 2G HBAs on
separate fabrics) and varying how I managed storage. Storage
