On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:32:14PM -0700, John R Pierce spake thusly:
> I've been asked for ideas on building a rather large archival storage
> system for inhouse use, on the order of 100-400TB. Probably using CentOS
> 6.The existing system this would replace is using Solaris 10 and
> ZFS, b
- Original Message -
| On 7/15/2011 6:37 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
| > On Saturday, July 16, 2011 04:24 AM, Devin Reade wrote:
| >> --On Friday, July 15, 2011 10:54:35 PM +0800 Christopher Chan
| >> wrote:
| >>
| >>> I would not touch ZFS on FreeBSD with a ten-foot pole.
| >>
| >> Would
On 7/15/2011 6:37 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2011 04:24 AM, Devin Reade wrote:
>> --On Friday, July 15, 2011 10:54:35 PM +0800 Christopher Chan
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I would not touch ZFS on FreeBSD with a ten-foot pole.
>>
>> Would you care to elaborate as to why? And speci
On Saturday, July 16, 2011 04:24 AM, Devin Reade wrote:
> --On Friday, July 15, 2011 10:54:35 PM +0800 Christopher Chan
> wrote:
>
>> I would not touch ZFS on FreeBSD with a ten-foot pole.
>
> Would you care to elaborate as to why? And specifically if it
> is particular to FreeBSD or ZFS or the
--On Friday, July 15, 2011 10:54:35 PM +0800 Christopher Chan
wrote:
> I would not touch ZFS on FreeBSD with a ten-foot pole.
Would you care to elaborate as to why? And specifically if it
is particular to FreeBSD or ZFS or the combination.
I've not used it so I do not have any opinions on it.
On Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:20 PM, Devin Reade wrote:
> Two thoughts:
>
> 1. Others have already inquired as to your motivation to move away from
> ZFS/Solaris. If it is just the hardware& licensing aspect, you
> might want to consider ZFS on FreeBSD. (I understand that unlike
>
On Jul 14, 2011, at 8:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 07/14/11 7:39 AM, przemol...@poczta.fm wrote:
>> What is the reason to avoid ZFS ? IMHO for such systems ZFS is the best.
>
> Oracle, mostly.
How about Nexenta then? Their product is solid, their prices reasonable and I
think their in good
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Don Krause wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2011, at 12:56 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 04:53:11PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:32:14PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
I've been asked for ideas on building a rather la
On 07/14/11 7:39 AM, przemol...@poczta.fm wrote:
> What is the reason to avoid ZFS ? IMHO for such systems ZFS is the best.
Oracle, mostly.
--
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
On 07/14/11 2:32 AM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> If I understand, it's not your only backup system, so I don't think it's that
> critical, but the rebuild time on each array versus the degraded IO
> capacity and its impact on serving content would be something interesting.
>
> Do you plan on making h
On Jul 14, 2011, at 12:56 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 04:53:11PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:32:14PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
>>> I've been asked for ideas on building a rather large archival storage
>>> system for inhouse use, on the or
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 04:53:11PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:32:14PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> > I've been asked for ideas on building a rather large archival storage
> > system for inhouse use, on the order of 100-400TB. Probably using CentOS
> > 6.The ex
Two thoughts:
1. Others have already inquired as to your motivation to move away from
ZFS/Solaris. If it is just the hardware & licensing aspect, you
might want to consider ZFS on FreeBSD. (I understand that unlike
the Linux ZFS implementation, the FreeBSD one is in-kernel.)
2. If
True. For your kind of usage, I too think (and recommend) you should stick
with ZFS.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:32:14PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> > I've been asked for ideas on building a rather large archival storage
> > system for
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 04:53:11PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:32:14PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> > I've been asked for ideas on building a rather large archival storage
> > system for inhouse use, on the order of 100-400TB. Probably using CentOS
> > 6.The ex
On 7/14/2011 1:32 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> I've been asked for ideas on building a rather large archival storage
> system for inhouse use, on the order of 100-400TB. Probably using CentOS
> 6.The existing system this would replace is using Solaris 10 and
> ZFS, but I want to explore using Lin
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:32:14PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> I've been asked for ideas on building a rather large archival storage
> system for inhouse use, on the order of 100-400TB. Probably using CentOS
> 6.The existing system this would replace is using Solaris 10 and
> ZFS, but I wa
>A) Can CentOS 6 handle that many JBOD disks in one system? is my upper
>size too big and I should plan for 2 or more servers? What happens with
>the device names when you've gone past /dev/sdz ?
Dev names double, sdaa etc.
>B) What is the status of large file system support in CentOS 6? I k
18 matches
Mail list logo
