>
>
> The SE also told me that Sun Cluster requires
> hardware raid, which
> conflicts with the general recommendation to feed ZFS
> raw disk. It seems
> such a configuration would either require configuring
> zdevs directly on the
> raid LUNs, losing ZFS self-healing and checksum
> correction features, or
> losing space to not only the hardware raid level, but
> a partially redundant
> ZFS level as well. What is the general consensus on
> the best way to deploy
> ZFS under a cluster using hardware raid?
I have a pair of 3510FC units, each export 2 RAID-5 (5-disk) LUNs.
On the T2000 to I map a LUN from each array into a mirror set, then add the 2nd
set the same way into the ZFS pool. I guess it's RAID-5+1+0. Yes we have
multipath SAN setup too.
e.g.
{cyrus1:vf5:133} zpool status -v
pool: ms1
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
ms1 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0 0 0
c4t600C0FF0000000000A73D97F16461700d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c4t600C0FF0000000000A719D7C1126E500d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0 0 0
c4t600C0FF0000000000A73D94517C4A900d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c4t600C0FF0000000000A719D38B93FD200d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
Works great. Nothing beats having an entire 3510FC down and never having users
notice there is a problem. I was replacing a controller in the 2nd array and
goofed up my cabling taking the entire array offline. Not a hiccup in service,
although I could see the problem in zpool status. I sorted everything out
plugged it up right, and everything was fine.
I like very much that the 3510 knows it has a global spare that is used for
that array, and having that level of things handled locally. In ZFS AFAICT,
there is no way to specify what affinity a spare has so a spare from one array
if it went hot to replace one in the other array, becomes an undesirable
dependency.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
