For the moment, SolarisCluster 3.2 does not support using AVS replication
within a cluster for failover of storage. We do support using storage based
replication for failover data with high end Hitachi based storage.
Also at this point SolarisCluster does not ship with support for zfs send.
You co
> SSH compresses by default? I thought you had to
> specify -oCompression
> and/or -oCompressionLevel?
Depends on how it was compiled.
Looking at the man pages for Solaris, looks like it's turned off
so yes, you'd have to set -oCompression
Paul
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
MachineMB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU
/sec %CPU
/fastsan/zfs3 (with 3 snapshots and a clone)
100 5414 98.8 31819 58.9 46620 95.4 2895 98.8 100516 99.8
7490.8 172.3
/fastsan/zfs3 (with 1 snapshot and a clone)
100 5316 97.5 65448 99.7 50097 99.0
>> My first guess is the NFS vs array cache-flush issue. Have you
>> configured the 6140 to ignore SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE requests? That'll
>> make a huge difference for NFS clients of ZFS file servers.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Doesn't setting zfs:zfs_nocacheflush=1 achieve the same result:
> ht
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 13:23:48 -0800, Marion Hakanson wrote:
>Albert Chin wrote:
>> Why can't the NFS performance match that of SSH?
>
> My first guess is the NFS vs array cache-flush issue. Have you
> configured the 6140 to ignore SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE requests? That'll
> make a huge difference f
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:23:46PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
>
> Take off every ZIL!
>
> http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/02/12/zil-communication
Interesting. With "set zfs:zil_disable = 1", I get:
1. [copy 400MB of gcc-3.4.3 via rsync/NFS]
# mount file-server:/opt/test /mn
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 10:04:34AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >> > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
> >> > > But still, how is
On 22-May-07, at 11:01 AM, Louwtjie Burger wrote:
On 5/22/07, Pål Baltzersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What if your HW-RAID-controller dies? in say 2 years or more..
What will read your disks as a configured RAID? Do you know how to
(re)configure the >controller or restore the config withou
Take off every ZIL!
http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/02/12/zil-communication
On 22/05/07, Albert Chin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
> > But still, how
On 5/22/07, Pål Baltzersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What if your HW-RAID-controller dies? in say 2 years or more..
What will read your disks as a configured RAID? Do you know how to (re)configure the
>controller or restore the config without destroying your data? Do you know for sure
that a >
> Therefore, it sounds like I should be strongly leaning
> towards not using the hardware raid in external disk arrays
> and use them like a JBOD.
>
Another thing to consider is the transparency that Solaris or a
general-purpose operating system gives for the purpose of
troubleshooting. For ex
Your boot-sector is lost (or not found)
Have you checked that BIOS is trying to boot from the correct disk.
My MSI-card bit me exacltly like this last time i plugged inn an aditional disk.
I had rebooted, but not powercycled.
When I powercycled, the BIOS detected new HW and came up with the incredi
What if your HW-RAID-controller dies? in say 2 years or more..
What will read your disks as a configured RAID? Do you know how to
(re)configure the controller or restore the config without destroying your
data? Do you know for sure that a spare-part and firmware will be identical, or
at least co
Pål Baltzersen wrote:
Try mounting the other way, so you read form NFS and write to ZFS (~DAS). That
should perform significantly better.
NFS write is slow (compared to read) because of syncronous ack.
If you for some reason cant mount the other way, then you may want to play with
NFS mount-opt
Try mounting the other way, so you read form NFS and write to ZFS (~DAS). That
should perform significantly better.
NFS write is slow (compared to read) because of syncronous ack.
If you for some reason cant mount the other way, then you may want to play with
NFS mount-options for write-buffer si
>On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
>> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
>> > > But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
>> >
>> > It's not that it is
16 matches
Mail list logo
