> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Rodriguez
>
> Dear list,
>
> I'm about to upgrade a zpool from 10 to 29 version, I suppose that
> this upgrade will improve several performance issues that are present
> on 10, however
>
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jesus Cea
>
> Sorry if this list is inappropriate. Pointers welcomed.
Not at all. This is the perfect forum for your question.
> So I am thinking about splitting my full two-disk zpool in t
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Fajar A. Nugraha
>
> > c) Currently Solaris decides to activate write caching in the SATA
> > disks, nice. What would happen if I still use the complete disks BUT
> > with two slices instead of
Ray,
If you are intending to go Nexenta then speak to your local Nexenta SE,
we've got HSL qualified solutions which cover our h/w support and we've
explicitly qualed some MD1200 configs with Dell for certain deployments
to guarantee support via both Dell h/w support and ourselves.
If you don't
Hi Grant,
On Jan 4, 2012, at 2:59 PM, grant lowe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've got a solaris 10 running 9/10 on a T3. It's an oracle box with 128GB
> memory RIght now oracle . I've been trying to load test the box with
> bonnie++. I can seem to get 80 to 90 K writes, but can't seem to get more
>
On Jan 5, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> Speaking of illumos, what exactly is the deal with the zfs discuss mailing
> list? There's all of 3 posts that show up for all of 2011. Am I missing
> something, or is there just that little traction currently?
> http://www.listbox.com/member/archi
On Wed, Jan 4 at 13:55, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Were the Dell cards able to present the disks as JBOD without any
third-party-flashing involved?
Yes, the ones I have tested (SAS 6/iR) worked as expected (bare drives
exposed to ZFS) with no changes to drive firmware. I have not tested
the H200
On 07/01/2011 12:01 AM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 06/30/2011 11:56 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>> Hm, it appears I'll have to do some reboots and more extensive testing.
>> I tried tuning various settings and then returned everything back to the
>> defaults. Yet, now I can ramp the number of concurren
may be one can do the following (assume c0t0d0 and c0t1d0)
1)split rpool mirror: zpool split rpool newpool c0t1d0s0
1b)zpool destroy newpool
2)partition 2nd hdd c0t1d0s0 into two slice (s0 and s1)
3)zpool create rpool2 c0t1d0s1
4)use lucreate -c c0t0d0s0 -n new-zfsbe -p c0t1d0s0
5)lustatus
c0t0d
correction
On 1/6/2012 3:34 PM, "Hung-Sheng Tsao (Lao Tsao 老曹) Ph.D." wrote:
may be one can do the following (assume c0t0d0 and c0t1d0)
1)split rpool mirror: zpool split rpool newpool c0t1d0s0
1b)zpool destroy newpool
2)partition 2nd hdd c0t1d0s0 into two slice (s0 and s1)
3)zpool create rpool2
Hello all,
I have a new idea up for discussion.
Several RAID systems have implemented "spread" spare drives
in the sense that there is not an idling disk waiting to
receive a burst of resilver data filling it up, but the
capacity of the spare disk is spread among all drives in
the array. As a re
11 matches
Mail list logo
