On Apr 15, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
> > On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> >>> On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan w
On Friday, April 15, 2011 03:59 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
>>> On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos...
>>> openindiana is under the Illumos
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
> > On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> >>> On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos...
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
>>> On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos...
>>> openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't goin
On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>>> Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos...
>> openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't going to
>> use anything else.
On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos...
>
> openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't going to
> use anything else.
Eh? I was under the impression that they are sep
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:19 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:44:00PM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:11 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:07:55PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
On 4/14/11, John R Pierce wro
On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos...
openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't going to
use anything else.
someone suggested Solaris Express, that has no patches or updates unless
you subscribe to annual support at sev
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:44:00PM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:11 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:07:55PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> >> On 4/14/11, John R Pierce wrote:
> >>> since this is the centos list, I really didn't want to
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:07 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> On 4/14/11, John R Pierce wrote:
>> since this is the centos list, I really didn't want to suggest this, but
>> if I was building a 20 or 40TB or whatever storage server, I do believe
>> I'd be strongly consider using Solaris, or on
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:11 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:07:55PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
>> On 4/14/11, John R Pierce wrote:
>>> since this is the centos list, I really didn't want to suggest this, but
>>> if I was building a 20 or 40TB or whatever storage
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:07:55PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> On 4/14/11, John R Pierce wrote:
> > since this is the centos list, I really didn't want to suggest this, but
> > if I was building a 20 or 40TB or whatever storage server, I do believe
> > I'd be strongly consider using Solaris
On 4/14/11, John R Pierce wrote:
> since this is the centos list, I really didn't want to suggest this, but
> if I was building a 20 or 40TB or whatever storage server, I do believe
> I'd be strongly consider using Solaris, or one of its variants like
> OpenIndiana, with ZFS.
>
> ZFS was engineere
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 01:51 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 04/13/11 9:51 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
>> I'm was stuck trying to decide whether to go for the cheaper RAID 5
>> setup and possibly getting killed by the IOPS penalty and the risk
>> associated with rebuild time, or figure out a w
On 04/13/11 9:51 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> I'm was stuck trying to decide whether to go for the cheaper RAID 5
> setup and possibly getting killed by the IOPS penalty and the risk
> associated with rebuild time, or figure out a way to use the
> recommended RAID 10 setup with a smaller usable
On 4/14/11, Ross Walker wrote:
> You can't expand a mdraid raid0.
>
> I believe you can expand a mdraid raid10,5,6, but not raid0.
That was what I thought previously when looking into this and weighing
the pros/cons of using RAID 10 vs RAID 5.
But earlier this week, from the 40TB Filesystem thre
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin
wrote:
> On 4/13/11, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>>> to expand the array :)
>>
>> I haven't had problems doing it this way yet.
>
> I finally figured out my mistake creating the raid devices and got a
> working RAID 0 on two RAID 1 arrays. But I wasn't
On 4/13/11, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>> to expand the array :)
>
> I haven't had problems doing it this way yet.
I finally figured out my mistake creating the raid devices and got a
working RAID 0 on two RAID 1 arrays. But I wasn't able to add another
RAID 1 component to the array with the error
mdadm
18 matches
Mail list logo
