On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 06:25:05PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
ZIL makes zero impact on resilver. I'll have to check to see if L2ARC is
still used, but
due to the nature of the ARC design, read-once workloads like backup or
resilver do
not tend to negatively impact frequently used data.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 03:05:32PM +1100, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 06:25:05PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
ZIL makes zero impact on resilver. I'll have to check to see if L2ARC is
still used, but
due to the nature of the ARC design, read-once workloads like backup or
On Sun, January 8, 2012 00:28, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
I think that I would also be interested in a system which uses the
so-called spare disks for more protective redundancy but then reduces
that protective redundancy in order to use that disk to replace a
failed disk or to automatically
First of all, I would like to thank Bob, Richard and Tim for
at least taking time to look at this proposal and responding ;)
It is also encouraging to see that 2 of 3 responders consider
this idea at least worth pondering and discussng, as it appeals
to their direct interest. Even Richard was
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 06:59:57AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-01-08 5:37, Richard Elling ??:
The big question is whether they are worth the effort. Spares solve a
serviceability
problem and only impact availability in an indirect manner. For single-parity
solutions, spares can
Note: more analysis of the GPFS implementations is needed, but that will take
more
time than I'll spend this evening :-) Quick hits below...
On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:15 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Jim,
On Jan 6, 2012,
2012-01-09 6:25, Richard Elling wrote:
Note: more analysis of the GPFS implementations is needed, but that will take
more
time than I'll spend this evening :-) Quick hits below...
Good to hear you might look into it after all ;)
but at the end of the day, if we've got a 12 hour rebuild
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012, Jim Klimov wrote:
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 result, the
Hi Jim,
On Jan 6, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
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
2012-01-08 5:37, Richard Elling пишет:
The big question is whether they are worth the effort. Spares solve a
serviceability
problem and only impact availability in an indirect manner. For single-parity
solutions, spares can make a big difference in MTTDL, but have almost no impact
on MTTDL for
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Jim,
On Jan 6, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
