> Isn't that D-Link DSN-5110 series a rebadged Dot Hill box?
Rebranded iStor Networks iS512. Incidentally iStor was bought out by
Promise so they now OEM the product line for D-Link.
--
Drew
"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."
--Marie Curie
_
Am 12.12.2011 23:25, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 12.12.2011 22:37, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
>>> Reindl Harald wrote:
get the right hardware and you do not have this problem
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/12169-304616-241493-241493-241493.
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 12.12.2011 22:37, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
>> Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> get the right hardware and you do not have this problem
>>> http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/12169-304616-241493-241493-241493.html
>>>
>>> you have TWO of all components with hotplug
Am 12.12.2011 22:37, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>> get the right hardware and you do not have this problem
>> http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/12169-304616-241493-241493-241493.html
>>
>> you have TWO of all components with hotplug
>
> Until you have a fire, or
On 12-12-11 22:11, Drew wrote:
>>> no, its done with replication over a private channel between the storage
>>> controllers. standard feature on all redundant controller
>>> hardware/appliance storage controllers such as IBM DS series, HP MSA,
>>> etc etc.
>>
>> EMC Clariion CX/CX3/CX4 and VNX, a
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 12.12.2011 15:13, schrieb Rudi Ahlers:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>> Am 12.12.2011 14:49, schrieb lheck...@users.sourceforge.net:
> Outage is one thing, but having the disk volumes disappear
> mid-transaction can be detriment
>> no, its done with replication over a private channel between the storage
>> controllers. standard feature on all redundant controller
>> hardware/appliance storage controllers such as IBM DS series, HP MSA,
>> etc etc.
>
> EMC Clariion CX/CX3/CX4 and VNX, also.
Ditto D-Link's DSN-5110 series.
On 12/12/2011 02:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/12/11 10:23 AM, Digimer wrote:
>> Shared cache is, I think, a single-point-of-failure.
>
> no, its done with replication over a private channel between the storage
> controllers. standard feature on all redundant controller
> hardware/applia
On Monday, December 12, 2011 02:02:41 PM John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/12/11 10:23 AM, Digimer wrote:
> > Shared cache is, I think, a single-point-of-failure.
>
> no, its done with replication over a private channel between the storage
> controllers. standard feature on all redundant controller
On 12/12/11 10:23 AM, Digimer wrote:
> Shared cache is, I think, a single-point-of-failure.
no, its done with replication over a private channel between the storage
controllers. standard feature on all redundant controller
hardware/appliance storage controllers such as IBM DS series, HP MSA,
Am 12.12.2011 19:17, schrieb John R Pierce:
> On 12/12/11 6:43 AM, Digimer wrote:
>> I handle this by setting up two servers running DRBD in active/active
>> with a simple two-node red hat cluster managing a floating IP address.
>> The storage network link uses a simple Active/Passive (mode=1) bo
On 12/12/2011 01:17 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/12/11 6:43 AM, Digimer wrote:
>> I handle this by setting up two servers running DRBD in active/active
>> with a simple two-node red hat cluster managing a floating IP address.
>> The storage network link uses a simple Active/Passive (mode=1) bon
On 12/12/11 6:43 AM, Digimer wrote:
> I handle this by setting up two servers running DRBD in active/active
> with a simple two-node red hat cluster managing a floating IP address.
> The storage network link uses a simple Active/Passive (mode=1) bond with
> either link go to separate switches.
DRB
On Monday, December 12, 2011 09:13:13 AM Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> And then you still have the iSCSI applicance / server to worry about.
> It can fail as well. Even with redundancy PSU's it could fail - the
> RAM, CPU, motherboard, controller card, expensive RAID card, etc can
> fail as well.
These pro
On 12/12/2011 09:13 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 12.12.2011 14:49, schrieb lheck...@users.sourceforge.net:
>>>
Outage is one thing, but having the disk volumes disappear mid-transaction
can be detrimental to a file system's h
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
>
>> Outage is one thing, but having the disk volumes disappear mid-transaction
>> can be detrimental to a file system's health.
>
> To get this back on-topic and closer to the OP's requests, are there any
> particular iscsi settings one
Am 12.12.2011 15:13, schrieb Rudi Ahlers:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 12.12.2011 14:49, schrieb lheck...@users.sourceforge.net:
>>>
Outage is one thing, but having the disk volumes disappear mid-transaction
can be detrimental to a file system's
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 12.12.2011 14:49, schrieb lheck...@users.sourceforge.net:
>>
>>> Outage is one thing, but having the disk volumes disappear mid-transaction
>>> can be detrimental to a file system's health.
>>
>> To get this back on-topic and closer
Am 12.12.2011 14:49, schrieb lheck...@users.sourceforge.net:
>
>> Outage is one thing, but having the disk volumes disappear mid-transaction
>> can be detrimental to a file system's health.
>
> To get this back on-topic and closer to the OP's requests, are there any
> particular iscsi setti
> Outage is one thing, but having the disk volumes disappear mid-transaction
> can be detrimental to a file system's health.
To get this back on-topic and closer to the OP's requests, are there any
particular iscsi settings one should consider to increase resiliency and
minimise the impact o
On 12/10/11 8:56 PM, Ryan Wagoner wrote:
>> So 2 questions :
>> > - how important is it to have it on its own network?
>> > - is it OK to use an unmanaged switch (as long as it is Gigabit), or are
>> > there some features of a managed switch that are desirable/required with
>> > iSCSI?
>> >
> A
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Alan McKay wrote:
> So 2 questions :
> - how important is it to have it on its own network?
> - is it OK to use an unmanaged switch (as long as it is Gigabit), or are
> there some features of a managed switch that are desirable/required with
> iSCSI?
>
At the ver
On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Alan McKay wrote:
>>
>> LOL! Cisco. If I told you that that particular device used to be called
>> Linksys, would it change your opinion of the device? I've got a Linksys
>> ADSL gateway that I'm quite sure couldn't keep up with the Dell. In fact,
>> I used to hav
>
> LOL! Cisco. If I told you that that particular device used to be called
> Linksys, would it change your opinion of the device? I've got a Linksys
> ADSL gateway that I'm quite sure couldn't keep up with the Dell. In fact,
> I used to have that *exact* Linksys device and it died within 18 mon
On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:05 PM, "James A. Peltier" wrote:
> - Original Message -
> | On Dec 10, 2011, at 1:49 PM, "James A. Peltier"
> | wrote:
> |
> | > Jumbo frames is really the important thing when it comes to iSCSI.
> | > Having 9000 byte packets verses 1500 byte packets will dramatic
- Original Message -
| On Dec 10, 2011, at 1:49 PM, "James A. Peltier"
| wrote:
|
| > Jumbo frames is really the important thing when it comes to iSCSI.
| > Having 9000 byte packets verses 1500 byte packets will dramatically
| > increase your performance per interrupt. Most cheaper unmana
On Dec 10, 2011, at 1:49 PM, "James A. Peltier" wrote:
> Jumbo frames is really the important thing when it comes to iSCSI. Having
> 9000 byte packets verses 1500 byte packets will dramatically increase your
> performance per interrupt. Most cheaper unmanaged switches cannot do this.
I want
- Original Message -
| > The Dell 6224 or 6248 switches are priced low
|
| Hmmm, we seem to have different definitions of "priced low" :-)
|
|
http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?s=bsd&c=ca&l=en&cs=cabsdt1&k=PowerConnect+6224&cat=all&x=0&y=0
|
| $2000 for the 24 port.
|
| I can get a C
On Dec 10, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Alan McKay wrote:
>> The Dell 6224 or 6248 switches are priced low
>
> Hmmm, we seem to have different definitions of "priced low" :-)
>
> http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?s=bsd&c=ca&l=en&cs=cabsdt1&k=PowerConnect+6224&cat=all&x=0&y=0
>
> $2000 for the 24 port.
- Original Message -
| Hey folks,
|
| I had some general questions and when reading through the list
| archives I
| came across an iSCSI discussion back in February where a couple of
| individuals were going back and forth about drafting up a "best
| practices"
| doc and putting it into a
> The Dell 6224 or 6248 switches are priced low
Hmmm, we seem to have different definitions of "priced low" :-)
http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?s=bsd&c=ca&l=en&cs=cabsdt1&k=PowerConnect+6224&cat=all&x=0&y=0
$2000 for the 24 port.
I can get a Cisco small business switch for less than 1/4 tha
On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Alan McKay wrote:
> So 2 questions :
> - how important is it to have it on its own network?
The traffic should definitely be segregated for security reasons and to make
sure there is minimal crosstalk. Whether to put on a separate switch or VLAN
depends on your cur
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> I've seen recommendations to use jumbo frames for iscsi - and if you
>> do that, everything on that subnet needs to be configured for them.
>>
>
> unless you have some really slow storage machines, why would you not use
> JF ?
>
I thought
The big issue in corporate land would be security. Yes you can do vlans
and/or encrypt it, but that is going to add overhead, either management
(*people) or CPU, both of which take away from any speed advantages you
might get.
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011, Alan McKay wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I had some gen
On 12/09/2011 05:36 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I've seen recommendations to use jumbo frames for iscsi - and if you
> do that, everything on that subnet needs to be configured for them.
>
unless you have some really slow storage machines, why would you not use
JF ?
- KB
_
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Alan McKay wrote:
>
> Now my questions :
> We are not using iSCIS yet at work but I see a few places where it would be
> useful e.g. a number of heavy-use NFS mounts (from my ZFS appliance) that I
> believe would be slightly more efficient if I converted them to iS
On 12/09/2011 11:27 AM, Alan McKay wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I had some general questions and when reading through the list archives I
> came across an iSCSI discussion back in February where a couple of
> individuals were going back and forth about drafting up a "best practices"
> doc and putting i
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Alan McKay wrote
>
> So 2 questions :
> - how important is it to have it on its own network?
>
I would say very important, but probably not required. A separate network
segregates the traffic, and you can secure it better. You can also have
failover, etc, and p
Hey folks,
I had some general questions and when reading through the list archives I
came across an iSCSI discussion back in February where a couple of
individuals were going back and forth about drafting up a "best practices"
doc and putting it into a wiki. Did that ever happen?And if so, w
39 matches
Mail list logo
