let A,B,C,D be the 250GB disks and X,Y the 500GB ones.
my choise here would be raidz over (A+B),(C+D),X,Y
means something like
zpool create tank raidz (stripe A B) (stripe C D) X Y
(how do you actually write that up as zpool commands?)
___
zfs-discuss
Marion Hakanson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> Living on the edge... The T3 has a 2 year battery life (time is counted).
>> When it decides the batteries are too old, it will shut down the nonvolatile
>> write cache. You'll want to make sure you have fresh batteries soon.
>
> Hmm, doesn't th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Living on the edge... The T3 has a 2 year battery life (time is counted).
> When it decides the batteries are too old, it will shut down the nonvolatile
> write cache. You'll want to make sure you have fresh batteries soon.
Hmm, doesn't the array put the cache into "writ
> Should I bfu to the latest bits to fix this
> problem or do I also need to install b72?
bfu to b72 (or newer) should be OK, iff there really is
a difference with shared library dependencies between
b70 and b72. I'm not sure about b70; but b72 with
just an empty /usr directory in the root files
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 05:03:29PM -0700, Scott wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I suppose my next question, then, is how
> difficult would it be for me to apply a patch against U4 to gain the
> gzip compression functionality in ZFS? I come from a FreeBSD
> background, so I have no problems with co
SCSI based, but solid and cheap enclosures if you don't care about
support:
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?satitle=Sun+D1000
On Oct 1, 2007, at 12:15, Andy Lubel wrote:
> I gave up.
>
> The 6120 I just ended up not doing zfs. And for our 6130 since we
> don't
> have santricity or t
I gave up.
The 6120 I just ended up not doing zfs. And for our 6130 since we don't
have santricity or the sscs command to set it, I just decided to export each
disk and create an array with zfs (and a RAMSAN zil), which made performance
acceptable for us.
I wish there was a firmware that just ma
comment below...
William Papolis wrote:
> I checked this out at the Solaris internals link above, because I am also
> interested in the best setup for ZFS.
>
> Assuming 500GB drives ...
>
> It turns out that the most cost effective option (meaning the least "lost"
> drive space due to redundan
On 10/01/07 17:01, Richard Elling wrote:
T3 comment below...
[cut]
A scrub is only 20% complete, but has found no errors thus far. I check
the T3 pair and no complaints there either - I did reboot them just for
luck (last reboot was 2 years ago, apparently!).
Living on the edge...
The T3 has
T3 comment below...
Gavin Maltby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/29/07 22:00, Gavin Maltby wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Our zfs nfs build server running snv_73 (pool created back before
>> zfs integrated to ON) paniced I guess from zfs the first time
>> and now panics on attempted boot every time as below. Is thi
Hi all,
I just posted some stuff about a simple ZFS automatic backup service to
my blog:
http://blogs.sun.com/timf/entry/zfs_automatic_backup_0_1
- all thoughts/comments (and bug reports!) welcome
cheers,
tim
--
Tim Foster, Sun Microsystems Inc, Solaris Engineer
Thanks, you're my hero... Should I bfu to the latest bits to fix this
problem or do I also need to install b72?
On 01/10/2007, at 8:22 PM, Jürgen Keil wrote:
>> I would like confirm that Solaris Express Developer Edition 09/07
>> b70, you can't have /usr on a separate zfs filesystem because of
On 01/10/2007, at 7:46 PM, James C. McPherson wrote:
> Kugutsumen wrote:
>> I would like confirm that Solaris Express Developer Edition 09/07
>> b70, you can't have /usr on a separate zfs filesystem because of
>> broken dependencies.
>> 1/ Part of the problem is that /sbin/zpool is linked t
> I would like confirm that Solaris Express Developer Edition 09/07
> b70, you can't have /usr on a separate zfs filesystem because of
> broken dependencies.
>
> 1/ Part of the problem is that /sbin/zpool is linked to
> /usr/lib/libdiskmgt.so.1
Yep, in the past this happened on several occas
Kugutsumen wrote:
> I would like confirm that Solaris Express Developer Edition 09/07
> b70, you can't have /usr on a separate zfs filesystem because of
> broken dependencies.
> 1/ Part of the problem is that /sbin/zpool is linked to /usr/lib/
> libdiskmgt.so.1
> 2/ There are probably other br
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 12:57:05PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello Neil,
>
> Thursday, September 27, 2007, 11:40:42 PM, you wrote:
>
>
> NP> Roch - PAE wrote:
> >> Pawel Jakub Dawidek writes:
> >> > I'm CCing zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, as this doesn't look like
> >> > FreeBSD-specific
I would like confirm that Solaris Express Developer Edition 09/07
b70, you can't have /usr on a separate zfs filesystem because of
broken dependencies.
1/ Part of the problem is that /sbin/zpool is linked to /usr/lib/
libdiskmgt.so.1
2/ There are probably other broken dependencies since I've
Hello Neil,
Thursday, September 27, 2007, 11:40:42 PM, you wrote:
NP> Roch - PAE wrote:
>> Pawel Jakub Dawidek writes:
>> > I'm CCing zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, as this doesn't look like
>> > FreeBSD-specific problem.
>> >
>> > It looks there is a problem with block allocation(?) when we
Hi,
On 09/29/07 22:00, Gavin Maltby wrote:
Hi,
Our zfs nfs build server running snv_73 (pool created back before
zfs integrated to ON) paniced I guess from zfs the first time
and now panics on attempted boot every time as below. Is this
a known issue and, more importantly (2TB of data in the p
19 matches
Mail list logo
