Hi,
It's my understanding that CAM doesn't bundle the new ST6x40 firmware
(7.1) at this point. However, the new firmware is available today by
request and it does remove the 2TB limitation for the 6140 and 6540. As
Andy had suggested, it does require a new version of CAM though, 6.1.
The ST2
On May 19, 2008, at 17:31, David Magda wrote:
> you can use, modify, and redistribute code released under CDDL
> without worrying about any patents
On May 19, 2008, at 18:12, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> If it was correct, then neither FreeBSD nor Mac OS X could use ZFS.
Somebody correct me if I'm
The release should be out any day now. I think its being pushed to the
external download site whilst we type/read.
Andy Lubel wrote:
> The limitation existed in every Sun branded Engenio array we tested -
> 2510,2530,2540,6130,6540. This limitation is on volumes. You will not be
> able to pre
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While Linus may be the de-facto Linux spokesperson, he does not hold
> the many thousands of copyrights to Linux so he does not "own" the
> work. It is a hopeless case. The FSF was a bit wiser since they made
> sure that everyone who contributed to
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Andy Lubel wrote:
> Or just do ZFS (or even SVM) setup like Bob and I did. Its actually
> pretty nice because the traffic will split to both controllers
> giving you theoretically more throughput so long as MPxIO is
> functioning properly. Only (minor) downside is parity
Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
>
> > I mean, if the Linux folks to want it, fine. But if Sun's actually
> > helping with such a possible effort, then it's just shooting itself in
> > the foot here, in my opinion.
>
>
> As it is, patents
The limitation existed in every Sun branded Engenio array we tested -
2510,2530,2540,6130,6540. This limitation is on volumes. You will not be able
to present a lun larger than that magical 1.998TB. I think it is a combination
of both in CAM and the firmware. Can't do it with sscs either...
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008, andrew wrote:
>
>
>> To do what you want requires at least Nevada build 88, or probably build
>> 90 since the Nevada installer, unlike the one in OpenSolaris 2008.05,
>> cannot currently install into a ZFS root pool. Support was added to the
>> text-m
On May 19, 2008, at 16:06, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> As it is, patents and licenses prevent Linux from picking up ZFS, but
> if they were to re-license ZFS under GPL3 or grant a linux project a
> patent license, it could be possible.
What does the CDDL say about patents?
The CDDL provides an explic
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> As it is, patents and licenses prevent Linux from picking up ZFS, but
> if they were to re-license ZFS under GPL3 or grant a linux project a
> patent license, it could be possible.
I don't believe that either of these is sufficient. The Linux kernel
i
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
>
>> I mean, if the Linux folks to want it, fine. But if Sun's actually
>> helping with such a possible effort, then it's just shooting itself in
>> the foot here, in my op
On May 18, 2008, at 14:01, Mario Goebbels wrote:
> I mean, if the Linux folks to want it, fine. But if Sun's actually
> helping with such a possible effort, then it's just shooting itself in
> the foot here, in my opinion.
As it is, patents and licenses prevent Linux from picking up ZFS, but
i
On Sun, 18 May 2008, andrew wrote:
> Apologies for the misinformation. OpenSolaris 2008.05 does *not* put swap
> on ZFS, so is *not* susceptible to the bugs that cause lock-ups under
> certain situations where the swap is on ZFS.
I was just looking into the feasibility of ZFS swap/dump under Open
On Sat, 17 May 2008, andrew wrote:
> To do what you want requires at least Nevada build 88, or probably build
> 90 since the Nevada installer, unlike the one in OpenSolaris 2008.05,
> cannot currently install into a ZFS root pool. Support was added to the
> text-mode installer and JumpStart in bui
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Richard Elling wrote:
> This is because OpenSolaris 2008.05 is based on NV b86 which does not
> have the fix for
>
> 5008936 ZFS and/or zvol should support dumps
> 5070124 dumpadm -d /dev/... does not enforce block
> device requirement for saveco
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008, Kenny wrote:
>
>
>> Bob M.- Thanks for the heads up on the 2 (1.998) TN Lun limit.
>> This has me a little concerned esp. since I have 1 TB drives being
>> delivered! Also thanks for the scsi cache flushing heads up, yet
>> another item to lookup!
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Kenny wrote:
> Bob M.- Thanks for the heads up on the 2 (1.998) TN Lun limit.
> This has me a little concerned esp. since I have 1 TB drives being
> delivered! Also thanks for the scsi cache flushing heads up, yet
> another item to lookup!
I am not sure if this LUN size
Hi -
I'm managing a build server that is running the 2008.05 version of
OpenSolaris. It went down over the weekend and in the process of
bringing it back up, I'm seeing some behavior involving zfs that I don't
understand. I created two pools on the system, mypool and rpool. Only
rpool is visib
Yes - EFI booting clearly does require support from the BIOS, since in this
case the traditional PC BIOS is replaced by an EFI BIOS. Only Intel Macs use
EFI rather than a traditional PC BIOS. (OK, so there are probably a few others
out there, but not in any great numbers).
You should still be a
On Sunday 18 May 2008 2:30:30 pm Mario Goebbels wrote:
> > Here's a link to a recent blog entry of Jeff Bonwick, lead engineer of
> > ZFS, showing him with Linus Torvalds, making mysterious comments in a
> > blog post that's tagged ZFS.
>
> Well, here's the link, anyhow. :S
>
> http://blogs.sun.com
system on a continuous loop of panic due to zfs issue.
Removed the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache per this
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbbwc?a=view
(Repairing an Unbootable System) to keep the system stable.
If I try to import the pool back system panics consistently
panic[cpu0]/thread=300035
My thanks to all for their replies. Now for a few responces...
James McP. - Yes I have indeed read the Bset Practices Guide and have a couple
of questions for a new thread.Thanks for the suggestion about the
cache I didn't know about this and will research more.
Bob M.- Thanks for the head
22 matches
Mail list logo
