Hello All;
While sometimes not possible, ZFS+Thumper solution is not so far away from
replacing expensive to buy and own NetApp like equipment.
What people can sometimes forget is Thumper and Solaris are general purpose
products that can be spcialized with some efforts.
We had some cases where
> Tape drives and tapes seem to be just too expensive. Am I out of date here?
No, I don't think so. The problem is that the low-end tape market has mostly
vanished as CDs/DVDs/disks get cheaper -- not that it should, because tape is
much more reliable -- so the cost of entry is pretty high. I u
zpool status shows:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
external DEGRADED 0 0 0
raidz1 DEGRADED 0 0 0
c18t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c18t0d0 FAULTED 0 0 0 corrupted data
I used to have a norma
>
> I don't know... while it will work I'm not sure I would trust it.
> Maybe just use Solaris Volume Manager with Soft Partitioning + UFS and
> forget about ZFS in your case?
Well, the idea was to see if it could replace the existing NetApps as
that was what Jonathan promised it could do, and
Hello can,
Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
cyg> and it
>> made them slower
cyg> That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
cyg> least have to describe *how* you measured this even if the
cyg> detailed results of those measurements may be lost in the mists
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> If you care enough to do backups, at least care enough to be
>>> able to restore. For my home backups, I use portable drives with
>>> copies=2 or 3 and compression enabled. I don't fool with
>>> incrementals, but many people do. The failure mode I'm worried
>>> about
Hello Jorgen,
Monday, December 10, 2007, 5:53:31 AM, you wrote:
JL> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello Jorgen,
>>
>> Honestly - I don't think zfs is a good solution to your problem.
>>
>> What you could try to do however when it comes to x4500 is:
>>
>> 1. Use SVM+UFS+user quotas
JL> I am now
> >
> > If you care enough to do backups, at least care enough to be
> > able to restore. For my home backups, I use portable drives with
> > copies=2 or 3 and compression enabled. I don't fool with
> > incrementals, but many people do. The failure mode I'm worried
> > about is decay, as the dri
Apparently I spent more than my brain wanted me to believe. Here is what I
picked up. Even though I am over the 1 meter limit on SATAII, it worked great.
http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sata_enclosures/scsat84xb.asp
Eric
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Ok, i have proposed, so, i'm trying to implement it. :)
I hope you can (at least) criticizing it. :))
The document is here: http://www.posix.brte.com.br/blog/?p=89
It is not complete, i'm running some tests yet, and analyzing the results. But
i think you can look and contribute with tome though
I did some work over the weekend. Still is having some trouble.
# fdisk -E /dev/rdsk/c7t0d0s2
# zpool create Radical-Vol /dev/dsk/c7t0d0
invalid vdev specification
use '-f' to override the following errors:
/dev/dsk/c7t0d0s0 is part of exported or potentially active ZFS pool
Radical-Vol. Please
USB2 giving you ~30MB/s is normal... a little better than mine (on Windows -
~25MB/s) actually.
For better performance better switch to eSATA or Firewire. Even FW400 will give
you better results than USB as there are lesser overheads.
However, I'm sure I saw some FW+ZFS related bug in bugdb som
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:59:22PM +, Karl Pielorz wrote:
> e.g. If I build a RAIDZ pool with 5 * 400Gb drives, and later add a 6th
> 400Gb drive to this pool, will its space instantly be available to volumes
> using that pool? (I can't quite see this working myself)
Hi Karl,
You can't curr
Hi,
I've seen/read a number of articles on the net, about RAIDZ - and things
like Dynamic Striping et'al. I know roughly how this works - but I can't
seem to get to the bottom of expanding existing pool space, if this is even
possible.
e.g. If I build a RAIDZ pool with 5 * 400Gb drives, and l
Hi everybody,
while trying to figure out what on earth has been going on
in my u20m2 due to
6636511 u20m2 bios version 1.45.1 still can't distinguish disks on sata
channel #1,
I engaged in a lot of cable swapping operations for the internal
sata drive cables.
Somehow I've managed to end up wit
15 matches
Mail list logo
