I hate to drag this thread on, but...
Erik Trimble wrote:
> OK, we cut off this thread now.
>
>
> Bottom line here is that when it comes to making statements about SATA
> vs SAS, there are ONLY two statements which are currently absolute:
>
> (1) a SATA drive has better GB/$ than a SAS drive
>
Erik Trimble Sun.COM> writes:
>
> Bottom line here is that when it comes to making statements about SATA
> vs SAS, there are ONLY two statements which are currently absolute:
>
> (1) a SATA drive has better GB/$ than a SAS drive
> (2) a SAS drive has better throughput and IOPs than a SATA driv
Thanks Martin,
Yeah, tried it but no luck :-( I do not think it is a hardware problem - in
fact I tried removing every disk one by one with no luck - this is why I think
it is not in fact a hardware problem...
Kind regards
Vasile
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Louwtjie Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ta on the comments
>
> I'm going to use Jorg's 'star' to simulate some sequential backup workloads,
> using different blocksizes and see what the system do.
>
> I'll save some output and post for people that might match the same config,
> now or i
OK, we cut off this thread now.
Bottom line here is that when it comes to making statements about SATA
vs SAS, there are ONLY two statements which are currently absolute:
(1) a SATA drive has better GB/$ than a SAS drive
(2) a SAS drive has better throughput and IOPs than a SATA drive
This i
I came across this bug in a similar way myself. The explanation given by
Stephen Hahn is this:
--
For a while, the boot-archive on 2008.nn systems included a copy of
zpool.cache. Recent versions do not make this mistake. Delete and
regenerate your boot archive, and you should be able
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:46:59PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
> > What is the "real/practical" possibility that I will face data loss during
> > the next 5 years for example ? As storage experts please help me
> > interpret whatever numbers you're going t
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
>>
>> What is the "real/practical" possibility that I will face data loss during
>> the next 5 years for example ? As storage experts please help me
>> interpret whatever numbers you
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Marc Bevand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Trimble Sun.COM> writes:
>> Marc Bevand wrote:
>> > 7500rpm (SATA) drives clearly provide the best TB/$, throughput/$, IOPS/$.
>> > You can't argue against that. To paraphrase what was said earlier in this
>> > thread, t
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I doubt that anyone will successfully argue that SAS drives offer the
> best IOPS/$ value as long as space, power, and reliability factors may
> be ignored. However, these sort of enterprise devices exist in order
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Joerg Schilling <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> You seem to missunderstand drive physics.
>
> With modern drives, seek times are not a dominating factor. It is the
> latency
> time that is rather important and this is indeed 1/rotanilnal-speed.
>
> On the other s
Ta on the comments
I'm going to use Jorg's 'star' to simulate some sequential backup workloads,
using different blocksizes and see what the system do.
I'll save some output and post for people that might match the same config, now
or in the future.
To be clear though: (currently)
#tar cvf
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
>
> What is the "real/practical" possibility that I will face data loss during
> the next 5 years for example ? As storage experts please help me
> interpret whatever numbers you're going to throw, so is it a "really really
> small chance", or would you be wor
I would look at what size IOs you are doing in each case.
I have been playing with a T5240 and got 400Mb/s read and 200Mb/s write speeds
with iozone throughput tests on a 6 disk mirror pool, so the box and ZFS can
certainly push data around - but that was using 128k blocks.
You mention the disk
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > I am not going to accept blanket numbers... If you claim that a 15k drive
> > offers more than 2x the IOPS/s of a 7.2k drive you would need to show your
> > computation. SAS and SATA use the same cable
Hi there.
I just got a new Adaptec RAID 51645 controller in because the old (other type)
was malfunctioning. It is paired with 16 Seagate 15k5 disks, of which two are
used with hardware RAID 1 for OpenSolaris snv_98, and the rest is configured as
striped mirrors as a zpool. I created a zfs file
Thanks for the info. I am not really after big performance, I am already on
SATA and it's good enough for me. What I really really can't afford is data
loss. The CAD designs our engineers are working on can sometimes be really
worth a lot. But still we're a small company and would rather save and b
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Marc Bevand wrote:
>
> Doh! I said the opposite of what I meant. Let me rephrase: "The SAS drive
> offers at most 2x-3x the IOPS (optimistic), but at 180/40=4.5x the price.
> Therefore the SATA drive has better IOPS/$."
I doubt that anyone will successfully argue that SAS drive
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> I am not going to accept blanket numbers... If you claim that a 15k drive
> offers more than 2x the IOPS/s of a 7.2k drive you would need to show your
> computation. SAS and SATA use the same cable and in case you buy server grade
> SATA disks, you als
> When I attempt again to import using zdb -e ztank
> I still get zdb: can't open ztank: I/O error
> and zpool import -f, whilst it starts and seems to
> access the disks sequentially, it stops al the 3rd
> one (no sure which precisely - it spins it up and the
> process stops right there, and the s
Marc Bevand gmail.com> writes:
>
> Well let's look at a concrete example:
> - cheapest 15k SAS drive (73GB): $180 [1]
> - cheapest 7.2k SATA drive (160GB): $40 [2] (not counting a 80GB at $37)
> The SAS drive most likely offers 2x-3x the IOPS/$. Certainly not 180/40=4.5x
Doh! I said the opposite
Marc Bevand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Be very careful about that. 73GB SAS drives aren't that expensive, so
> > you can get 6 x 73GB 15k SAS drives for the same amount as 11 x 250GB
> > SATA drives (per Sun list pricing for J4200 drives). SATA doesn't
> > always win the IOPS/$. Remember
Hi,
are there any issue in ZFS boot using a pool with devices in a Storage
Area Network (SAN)?
I'm interested in both the SPARC and x86 platforms.
Rgrds,
Danilo.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mai
Hello David,
Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 10:57:45 PM, you wrote:
DF> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello Juergen,
>>
>> Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 5:43:56 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> JN> Stephen Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
I am running OpenSolaris 2008.05 as a PV g
Erik Trimble Sun.COM> writes:
> Marc Bevand wrote:
> > 7500rpm (SATA) drives clearly provide the best TB/$, throughput/$, IOPS/$.
> > You can't argue against that. To paraphrase what was said earlier in this
> > thread, to get the best IOPS out of $1000, spend your money on 10 7500rpm
> > (SATA
25 matches
Mail list logo
