On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Al Hopper wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Joe Little wrote:
>
> > and specific models, and the driver used? Looks like there may be
> > stability issues with the marvell, which appear to go unanswered..
>
> I've tested a box running two Marvell based 8-port controllers (which ha
On 12/21/06, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Joe Little wrote:
> and specific models, and the driver used? Looks like there may be
> stability issues with the marvell, which appear to go unanswered..
I've tested a box running two Marvell based 8-port controllers (which
Darren J Moffat wrote:
One other area where is is useful is when you are in a jurisdiction
where a court order may require you to produce your encryption keys -
yes such jurisdictions exist and I don't want to debate the "human
rights" angle or social engineering aspects of this just state tha
So are there any PCI-Express cards based on the Marvell chipset? And/or
is there something with native SATA support that is the same general
specifications (8 ports, non-raid) just based on a different chipset but
using a PCI-E interface?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Joe Little wrote:
> and specific models, and the driver used? Looks like there may be
> stability issues with the marvell, which appear to go unanswered..
I've tested a box running two Marvell based 8-port controllers (which has
been running great on Update 2) on the solaris
Thanks for the Areca recommendation. My vendor was initially proposing the
Areca as well. I had thought that the Supermicro MV8 would be better since two
cards total only $200 vs the $700 for a 12-port Areca card, and thought that
the MV8 would have good support since Thumper uses the Marvell 88
and specific models, and the driver used? Looks like there may be
stability issues with the marvell, which appear to go unanswered..
On 12/21/06, Jason J. W. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Naveen,
I believe the newer LSI cards work pretty well with Solaris.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 12/
Hey,
#First question to ask -- are you using the emlxs driver for
#the Emulex card?
Im using what I believe is the latest version of SFS. I got it from a link on
the Emulex website.
to http://www.sun.com/download/products.xml?id=42c4317d
#Second question -- are you up to date on the SAN Found
Hola folks,
I am new to the list, please redirect me if I am posting to the wrong
location. I am starting to use ZFS in production (Solaris x86 10U3 --
11/06) and I seem to be seeing unexpected behavior for zfs list and
snapshots. I create a filesystem (lets call it a/b where a is the
Hi Naveen,
I believe the newer LSI cards work pretty well with Solaris.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 12/20/06, Naveen Nalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
This may not be the right place to post, but hoping someone here is running a
reliably working system with 12 drives using ZFS that can tell me
AFAIK there are Sata controllers from Areca and HP where you have a native
Solaris 10 driver. I don´ t have them, but the Areca controller had a very
positive test in a German computer magazine.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-disc
At a minimum use the QLA2200 HBAs. As they were only recently EOLd. If you
tried to give me a QLA2100 series HBA, I would not accept it. It's 5
generations behind the current FC hardware. At least with a QLA2200 HBA you
will get qlc support and MPXIO.
Lyle
This message posted from opensolar
Bart Smaalders wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Not sure. I don't see an advantage to moving off UFS for boot pools. :-)
-J
Except of course that snapshots & clones will surely be a nicer
way of recovering from "adverse administrative events"...
and make live upgrade and patching so much
One other area where is is useful is when you are in a jurisdiction
where a court order may require you to produce your encryption keys -
yes such jurisdictions exist and I don't want to debate the "human
rights" angle or social engineering aspects of this just state that it
exists.
For such
Jeff wrote :
> The installation software does not yet understand
> ZFS, and is not able to
> upgrade a Solaris 10 system with a ZFS root file
> system. Further, it is not
> able to upgrade a Solaris 10 system with a non-global
> zone that has a ZFS file
> system as its zonepath.
Thanks Jeff.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:47:07PM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >James makes a good argument that this scheme won't suffice for customers
> >who need that level of assurance. I'm inclined to agree. For customers
> >who don't need that level of assurance then encryptio
Nicolas Williams wrote:
James makes a good argument that this scheme won't suffice for customers
who need that level of assurance. I'm inclined to agree. For customers
who don't need that level of assurance then encryption ought to suffice.
Has anyone other than me actually read the current N
Hello Shawn,
Thursday, December 21, 2006, 4:28:39 PM, you wrote:
SJ> All,
SJ> I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using
SJ> two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features
SJ> than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable).
With only one LUN
Darren Reed wrote:
Darren,
A point I don't yet believe that has been addressed in this
discussion is: what is the threat model?
There are several and this is about providing functionality so that
customers can choose what they want to use when it is appropriate.
Using format(1M) for whole "
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren Reed wrote:
Darren,
A point I don't yet believe that has been addressed in this
discussion is: what is the threat model?
Are we targetting NIST requirements for some customers
or just general use by everyday folks?
Even higher level: What problem are you/we tryin
james hughes wrote:
On Dec 20, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 03:21 -0800, james hughes wrote:
This would be mostly a "vanity erase" not really a serious "security
erase" since it will not over write the remnants of remapped sectors.
Yup. As usual, your mila
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:31:59PM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >I like the idea, I really do, but it will be s expensive because of
> >ZFS' COW model. Not only file removal or truncation will call bleaching,
> >but every single file system modification... Heh, w
Frank Hofmann wrote:
And this kind of "deep bleaching" would also break if you use snapshots
- how do you reliably bleach if you need to keep the all of the old data
around ? You only could do so once the last snapshot is gone. Kind of
defeating the idea - automatic but delayed indefinitely til
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
I like the idea, I really do, but it will be s expensive because of
ZFS' COW model. Not only file removal or truncation will call bleaching,
but every single file system modification... Heh, well, if privacy of
your data is important enough, you probably don't care
All,
I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using two LUNS from
a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features than UFS does on one LUN
from a SAN (i.e is it less stable).
Thanks,
Shawn
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On 06/09/06, Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 04:23:32PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
>
> a) prevent attempts to create zvols in non-global zones
> b) somehow allow it (?) or
> c) Don't do That
>
> I vote for a) myself - should I raise an RFE?
Yes, that was _supposed_
Hi,
Something is unclear in "Solaris containers" and "Solaris ZFS" docs
Two extracts :
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/6n7ht6qsm?q=zone&a=view
"Consider the following interactions when working with ZFS on a system with
Solaris zones installed:
A ZFS file system that is added to a non
27 matches
Mail list logo
