On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:52 PM, darkblue <darkblue2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I recommend buying either the oracle hardware or the nexenta on whatever
>>> they recommend for hardware.
>>> Definitely DO NOT run the free version of solaris without updates and
>>> expect it to be reliable.
>> That's a bit strong. Yes I do regularly update my supported (Oracle)
>> systems, but I've never had problems with my own build Solaris Express
>> I waste far more time on (now luckily legacy) fully supported Solaris 10
> what does it mean?
It means some people have experienced problem on both supported and
unsupported solaris box, but using Oracle hardware would give you
higher chance of having less problem, since Oracle (supposedly) tests
their software on their hardware regularly to make sure they works
> I am going to install solaris 10 u10 on this server.it that any problem
> about compatible?
As mentioned earlier, if you want fully-tested configuration, running
solaris on oracle hardware is a no-brainer choice.
Another alternative is using nexenta on hardware they certify, like
, since they've run enough tests on the combination.
Also, if you look at posts on this lists, the usual recommendation is
to use SAS disks instead of SATA for best performance and reliability.
> and which version of solaris or solaris derived do you suggest to build
> storage with the above hardware.
Why not the recently-released solaris 11?
And while we're on the subject, if using legal software is among your
concerns, and you don't have solaris support (something like
$2k/scoket/year, which is the only legal way to license solaris for
non-oracle hardware), why not use openindiana?
zfs-discuss mailing list