--- Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Chung Hang Christopher Chan > wrote: > > > Great, made your day then. > > Not really, I use Solaris/OpenSolaris as my primary > operating system.
Heh, i'd love to get centos 4 off my home box. i guess i will just look out for a cheapo esata controller as I have no current left on the 12v rail for additional disks I think. > > > This backup server was Open Solaris from the start > > since I wanted to give Open Solaris a shot as > there is > > no iscsi target support included with the Linux > kernel > > as yet. > > So, this would seem like a good attribute for > Solaris. I think I can imagine RHEL GFS on Solaris ISCSI :P. Just kidding. > > >> Does Linux have good support for RAID bundled > with > >> it? > > > > RAID0, RAID1, RAID10 are okay. Never tried RAID5 > since > > I have heard quite a few horror stories about > Linux > > software raid arrays in raid5 mode. > > What your experience on that though? What are you > currently running your > backup server on, at your company? There was no backup server before the Open Solaris box. My experience with Linux software raid has been quite good. So good that I have even missed the latest features available with mdadm such as creating mirrors with just one disk so that you can add the second disk later. I guess in this regard the installers available are better on Linux since they support installing on raid arrays and when they did not such as in the RH9 days, you could still hit the console during the partitioning section and manually create what raid arrays you want and then go back to the installer which would pick up what you have done. Support for lvm on raid has been available for quite a while. I have not read the latest on install on zfs but I see that this will not be a linux point much longer. > > >> What filesystem are you comparing zfs to? > > > > Hmm. I don't believe I have actually made > disparaging > > comments about the Solaris kernel and stuff that > comes > > with it besides the userland packaging. And nobody > has > > done an in my face 'you do that with this on Open > > Solaris' so I guess that means I have to wait. > > Whoa there Chung Hang Christopher, no need to get > defensive because I > asked what type of filesystems you compared it to. I > was only trying to > find out if you were giving it a fair shake, before > making your friend > laugh his pants off. Tell me what type of experience > you have doing > backups. This sounds like something that one would > use a server for, but > the majority of your comments are about the desktop > lacking. The guy is running ext3 on software raid and on one instance on a 3ware too. I built the 3ware box for him. As for comparing filesystems...I guess I would try this test: http://untroubled.org/benchmarking/2004-04 and see how it stacks up. > > Ok, how did Solaris compare in the server > environment? Is your friend > still laughing about Sun support? I have a friend > who's stuck with Red Hat > support, and he's not laughing at all, he's > crying...in his beer... He does not subscribe to Redhat support. He is the support aside from when he runs to me... The two reasons that he laughs at Sun that I can think of are one rather personal reason which I shall not mention and the other being that his brother-in-law who works for some Fortune 500 company replaced all their Sun boxes or Solaris with Linux. I gather that his brother-in-law was get high up and perhaps made the call too... So Solaris has no fair comparison in his own environment and getting him to try Open Solaris is at the moment at stalemate of "don't like GNOME". As for my current environment, I am the sole IT guy and I got two linux boxes as the company fax and a mail server in addition to the existing MS Exchange installation. At my previous job, I had direct responsibility for over three score mail servers and shared responsibility with others for others. Mostly Linux and FreeBSD boxes. I don't know if Open Solaris would have made it but if it did, we would have had to be pretty comfortable building deb packages on nexenta I think. > > > Ah, I don't know if you can find that in official > > Redhat docs (must be somewhere in the RHEL3 > docs...) > > but you can go here for laughs: > > > > > http://www.nber.org/sys-admin/granite-digital-linux.html > > > > The line: echo "scsi add-single-device 0 0 0 0" > >> /proc/scsi/scsi to tell the scsi system to rescan > I > > believe... > > > > http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-4.html > > > > The line: echo "scsi remove-single-device 0 0 2 0" > > > > /proc/scsi/scsi BEFORE you yank the disk... > > > > Oh, and you have to get the numbers right too... > > This is what I call "Google Support". Not only do we > have that on Solaris, > you can go to docs.sun.com and get one stop shopping > for much of the > system. So will Open Solaris cater to guys on Google support then? Redhat Hong Kong is working hard at creating Linux professionals over here so that they can get some more google support guys and hopely one or two paid support guys when those guys convince their employers. > > > I was only talking about the hotswap procedures. > :P > > Well, did Solaris Express perform well in that > regard? I guess I would say beyond imagination :D > > > regarding hardware raid...when will 3ware come to > > Solaris? Are those guys not at all interested? > > Have you already enquired with them? Which of their > controllers are you > using? I am not using any because they do not list Solaris on their website and others on the Centos list have said that 3ware does not provide Solaris drivers. At least Areca is available but I have never tried an Areca card. > > >> Do you use ReiserFS? Ext3? What are you comparing > >> zfs to? > > > > Both of those are a joke and so is XFS, the other > > filesystem in the top three most popular Linux > > filesystems, so I obviously did not make any ZFS > vs > > Linux 'x' filesystem. > > Really? What filesystem do you run on Linux? Are you > using Ext2? That's > getting pretty dated nowdays, it doesn't even > support journaling, does it? > It's barely one step above FAT32... I don't have a choice. I am using ext3 at the moment. XFS = fast on writes but disaster when you lose power. ext3 = slow but more stable. > > You even have to wait for an fsck on Linux? Last I > remember it would fsck > every 20 boots, odd way to maintain your system, but > that's how I guess > it's done. How do you have your system configured to > handle that? In my previous job, those Linux boxes run 24/7 and since I did not manage the file servers I can only say I did not care about the fscking of filesystem the mail queue is on. If there really was a problem, once the queue is cleared, it would just be recreated. > > How does your laughing friend manage that on his > RHES? I bet he's not > laughing about that...<wink> I don't know if he even thinks that deep... > > > The two 750GB SATA disks for the mirror and they > were > > given whole without any partitioning. > > So, you had 2 drives for the mirror, and another to > boot off of? Yes. > > > Well, he does have another chipset, si3132 I > believe. > > Well, I wouldn't trust any other results on a > different chipset, > especially something like a SATA driver, but it > doesn't seem like you've > even gotten that far, as you're not sure if there's > timeouts or not. > > What software are you using for testing? IOW, what > type of test are you > running this with? This was only incidentally noticed during rcp attempts of a bzipped tarball that was about 220MB in size. > > > My controller uses the si3124 chip. He is > reporting cp > > from one zfs to another zfs on pools sitting on > sata > > disks connected to his si3132 controller. > > Different controller, would you expect your 3124 to > be the same? Even revs > of NICs are not always supported, and you're using a > SATA driver like > that? Well I experienced what appears to be a similar problem which I had at first thought of as Linux rcp <-> Solaris rcp incompatibility. > > > I am > > reporting rcp from a linux box (maildir mail host > + > > file server) to the solaris box will run into > > 'timeouts' at random times and i have apparently > > worked around it by using rsync over rsh instead > of > > rcp > > Did you file a bug on this? Although I would never > reccomend any of the > 'r' commands for general use, you're welcome to use > and file bugs against > it when you find problems. Please do that if you > want to make sure it gets > fixed. You can start at this link: > > http://www.opensolaris.org/bug/report.jspa Thanks, I will do that. > > > In other words I wanted to rcp the initial stuff > > over and then later use rsync to keep things in > sync > > but in the end I had to use rsync over rsh to the > > initial copy since using rcp was too > unpredictable. > > This is with Solaris Express b59 so if there has > been > > an update to the si3124 driver/SATA framework, > please > > let me know how I can get them so I can test. > > If you have a workaround, file the bug and use your > workaround until it's > fixed. You can use scp on build 59 also, it's a part > of the system. I > reccomend you use it rather than rcp. I run rcp over a vpn link and besides scp slows things down big time when compared to rcp. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
