Anton B. Rang wrote:
> Some RAID systems compare checksums on reads, though this is usually only for
> RAID-4 configurations (e.g. DataDirect) because of the performance hit
> otherwise.
>
For the record, Solaris had a (mirrored) RAID system which would compare
data from both sides of the mir
Anton B. Rang wrote:
> I find it naïve to imagine that Sun customers "expect" their UFS (or other)
> file systems to be unrecoverable.
OK, I'll bite. If we believe the disk vendors who rate their disks as
having
an unrecoverable error rate of 1 bit per 10^14 bits read, and knowing that
UFS has
Some RAID systems compare checksums on reads, though this is usually only for
RAID-4 configurations (e.g. DataDirect) because of the performance hit
otherwise.
End-to-end checksums are not yet common. The SCSI committee recently ratified
T10 DIF, which allows either an operating system or appli
I wasn't joking, though as is well known, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Both UFS and ZFS, in common with all file system, have design flaws and bugs.
To lose an entire UFS file system (barring the loss of the entire underlying
storage) requires a great deal of corruption; there are multipl
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Joseph Zhou wrote:
>
> In that spirit, and looking at the NetApp virtual server support
> architecture, I would say --
> as much as the ONTAP/WAFL thing (even with GX integration) is elegant, it
> would make more sense to utilize the file system capabilities with kernal
> in
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 04:44:10PM -0800, Mark Dornfeld wrote:
> I have installed Solaris 10 on a ZFS filesystem that is not mirrored. Since I
> have an identical disk in the machine, I'd like to add that disk to the
> existing pool as a mirror. Can this be done, and if so, how do I do it?
Yes:
I have installed Solaris 10 on a ZFS filesystem that is not mirrored. Since I
have an identical disk in the machine, I'd like to add that disk to the
existing pool as a mirror. Can this be done, and if so, how do I do it?
Thanks
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Hi Bob, Tim, Jeff, you are all my friends, and you all know what you are
talking about.
As a friend, and trusting your personal integrity, I ask you, please, don't
get mad, enjoy the open discussion.
(ok, ok, O(N) is revolutionary in tech thinking, just not revolutionary in
end customer value.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Dak wrote:
> What do you think about this architecture? Could the gateway be a
> bottleneck? Do you have any other ideas or recommendations?
You will need to have redundancy somewhere to avoid possible data
loss. If redundancy is in the backend, then you should be protecte
Dak wrote:
> Hi together,
> Currently I am planning a storage network for making backups of several
> servers. At the moment there are several dedicated backup server for it: 4
> nodes; each node is providing 2.5 TB disk space and exporting it with CIFS
> over Ethernet/1 GBIT. Unfortunately this
Hi together,
Currently I am planning a storage network for making backups of several
servers. At the moment there are several dedicated backup server for it: 4
nodes; each node is providing 2.5 TB disk space and exporting it with CIFS over
Ethernet/1 GBIT. Unfortunately this is not a very flexib
zfs folks,
I sent the following to indiana-disc...@opensolaris.org, but perhaps
someone here can get to the bottom of this. Why must zfs trash my
system so often with this hostid nonsense? How do I recover from this
situation? (I have no OpenSolaris boot CD with me at the moment, so
zpool impor
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Brett wrote:
>
> I will just say though that there is something in zfs which caused
> this in the first place as when i first replaced teh faulty sata
> controller, only 1 of the 4 disks showed the incorrect size in
> format but then as i messed around trying to zpool export
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Tim wrote:
>
> Seriously? Do you know anything about the NetApp platform? I'm hoping this
> is a genuine question...
I believe that esteemed Sun engineers like Jeff are quite familiar
with the NetApp platform. Besides NetApp being one of the primary
storage competitors, i
> Seriously? Do you know anything about the NetApp platform? I'm hoping this
> is a genuine question...
>
> Off the top of my head nearly all of them. Some of them have artificial
> limitations because they learned the hard way that if you give customers
> enough rope they'll hang themselves.
Well after a couple of weeks of beating my head, i finally got my data back so
I thought I would post what process recovered it.
I ran the samsung estool utility
ran auto-scan and for each disk that was showing the wrong physical size i :-
chose set max address
chose recover native size
After th
> Off the top of my head nearly all of them. Some of them have artificial
> limitations because they learned the hard way that if you give customers
> enough rope they'll hang themselves. For instance "unlimited snapshots".
Oh, that's precious! It's not an arbitrary limit, it's a safety feafure
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
> > I'm going to pitch in here as devil's advocate and say this is hardly
> > revolution. 99% of what zfs is attempting to do is something NetApp and
> > WAFL have been doing for 15 years+. Regardless of the merits of their
> > patents and pr
Richard, I have been glancing through the posts, saw more hardware RAID vs
ZFS discussion, some are very useful.
However, as you adviced me the other day, we should think about the overall
solution architect, not just the feature itself.
I believe the spirit of ZFS snapshot is more significant t
19 matches
Mail list logo
