Hi All,
Currently, the ssd's used in 7000 series are stec's, ssd's used inside
servers are intel
Sent from a mobile device
Mertol Ozyoney
On 20.Nis.2009, at 06:09, Scott Laird wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David Magda
wrote:
Looking at the web site for Sun's SSD storage prod
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> I see no evidence of an I/O or file system bottleneck here. While the
> service times are a little higher than I expect, I don't get worried until
> the %busy is high and actv is high and asvc_t is high(er). I think your
> problem is elsew
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:20 AM, David Magda wrote:
> Looking at the web site for Sun's SSD storage products, it looks like what's
> been offered is the so-called "Logzilla":
>
> http://www.sun.com/storage/flash/specs.jsp
You know, those specs look almost *identical* to the Intel X25-E.
Richard Elling wrote:
//etc/svc/repository-boot-20090419_174236
This file is created at boot time, not when power has failed.
So the fault likely occurred during the boot. With this knowledge,
the rest of your argument makes no sense.
rebootsystem boot Sun Apr 1
iostat measurements comment below...
Gary Mills wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:45:54PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
[perf-discuss cc'd]
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Gary Mills wrote:
Many other layers are involved in this server. We use scsi_vhci for
redundant I/O paths and Sun'
I will be conducting a tutorial on ZFS at the USENIX Technical
Conference in San Diego
on June 14, 2009. I hope you can attend! Here is the blurb in the
conference agenda.
There is still time for me to add content, so send me your wish list and
I'll try
to accommodate.
Additional information
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:56:54 -0400
David Magda wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2009, at 12:52, dick hoogendijk wrote:
>
> > You need redundancy and you don't get that on a single drive. A
> > sound use of ZFS needs it.
> Not quite the same, but...
>
> "zfs set copies=2 myzfsfs" ?
Like you say: not quite
On Apr 19, 2009, at 12:52, dick hoogendijk wrote:
You need redundancy and you don't get that on a single drive. A
sound use of ZFS needs it.
Not quite the same, but...
"zfs set copies=2 myzfsfs" ?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensol
David Magda wrote:
On Apr 19, 2009, at 16:48, Richard Elling wrote:
David Magda wrote:
Also, on the currently available SSD, there's a 'Try and Buy' logo:
would it be possible to 'borrow' one of these SSDs for the sixty
days and run benchmarks, and if it doesn't help, remove them from
the
On Apr 19, 2009, at 16:48, Richard Elling wrote:
David Magda wrote:
Also, on the currently available SSD, there's a 'Try and Buy' logo:
would it be possible to 'borrow' one of these SSDs for the sixty
days and run benchmarks, and if it doesn't help, remove them from
the ZFS pool where th
udip...@gmail.com said:
> dick at nagual.nl wrote:
>> Maybe because on the fifth day some hardware failure occurred? ;-)
>
> That would be which? The system works and is up and running beautifully.
> OpenSolaris, as of now.
Running beautifully as long as the power stays on? Is it hard to believe
Uwe Dippel wrote:
casper@sun.com wrote:
I would suggest that you follow my recipe: not check the boot-archive
during a reboot. And then report back. (I'm assuming that that will
take several weeks)
We are back at square one; or, at the subject line.
I did a zpool status -v, everyth
David Magda wrote:
Looking at the web site for Sun's SSD storage products, it looks like
what's been offered is the so-called "Logzilla":
http://www.sun.com/storage/flash/specs.jsp
This is the unit that is used with the "zpool add log devX" command.
Are there any plans to add "Readzilla"
mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca said:
> What would I look for with mpstat?
Look for a CPU (thread) that might be 100% utilized; Also look to see
if that CPU (or CPU's) has a larger number in the "ithr" column than all
other CPU's. The idea here is that you aren't getting much out of the
T2000 if only one
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Gary Mills wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:45:54PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
>> Also, you may want to consider doing backups from the NetApp rather
>> than from the Solaris box.
>
> I've certainly recommended finding a different way to perform backups.
>
>> As
Hi,
does anybody know, whether it is possible to get the java source for
swat (where/how)?
Thanx,
jel.
--
Otto-von-Guericke University http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/
Department of Computer Science Geb. 29 R 027, Universitaetsplatz 2
39106 Magdeburg, Germany Tel: +49 391 67 12768
_
Because.
90+% of the normal desktop users will run a non-redundant pool, and
expect their filesystems to not add operational failures, but come
back after a yanked power cord without fail.
OpenSolaris desktop users are surely less than 0.5% of the desktop
population. Are the 90+% of the normal d
Looking at the web site for Sun's SSD storage products, it looks like
what's been offered is the so-called "Logzilla":
http://www.sun.com/storage/flash/specs.jsp
This is the unit that is used with the "zpool add log devX" command.
Are there any plans to add "Readzilla" offerings to t
Uwe Dippel wrote:
Next, a power failure, 2 hours later, and this is what zpool status -v
thinks:
Reliability at power failure? That was my question, and I had to learn
Your question should be about HARDWARE reliability after power failure.
Some (cheap) hardware are very unreliable, either t
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
Additionally, over the last few months I'm pretty sure I've seen this
same discussion and report of corruption when the person *did* have
mirrored boot and had an unsafe power fail. I'll have to dig to find
it though.
You are right that there have be
On Sun, Apr 19 at 18:38, dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:24:26 -0500 (CDT)
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
If you want to be included in the 0.5% of the desktop population who
are smart enough to run OpenSolaris, maybe you should add a mirror
drive.
You took the words right out of my mo
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:41:49 +0800
Uwe Dippel wrote:
> I'd still like to run OpenSolaris, and without mirror drive.
> Where does that put me?
Somewhere I wouldn't want to be. NOT if I run production servers, that
is. Systems to play with are OK of course. You need redundancy and you
don't get tha
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
OpenSolaris desktop users are surely less than 0.5% of the desktop
population. Are the 90+% of the normal desktop users you are talking
about the Microsoft Windows users, which is indeed something like 90%?
If you really want to be part of the majority, perhaps you ins
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:24:26 -0500 (CDT)
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> If you want to be included in the 0.5% of the desktop population who
> are smart enough to run OpenSolaris, maybe you should add a mirror
> drive.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I often see/read messages from people who
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Uwe Dippel wrote:
Why are you running a non-redundant pool?
Because.
90+% of the normal desktop users will run a non-redundant pool, and expect
their filesystems to not add operational failures, but come back after a
yanked power cord without fail.
OpenSolaris desktop
>> And after some 4 days without any CKSUM error, how can yanking the
>> power cord mess boot-stuff?
>
> Maybe because on the fifth day some hardware failure occurred? ;-)
ha ha ! sorry .. that was pretty funny.
--
Dennis
___
zfs-discuss mailing lis
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:45:54PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
> [perf-discuss cc'd]
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Gary Mills wrote:
> > Many other layers are involved in this server. We use scsi_vhci for
> > redundant I/O paths and Sun's Iscsi initiator to connect to the
> > storage on our
Toby Thain wrote:
Chances are. That Ubuntu as double boot here never finds anything
wrong, crashes, etc.
Why should it? It isn't designed to do so.
I knew this would inevitably creep up. :)
Why are you running a non-redundant pool?
Because.
90+% of the normal desktop users will run
dick hoogendijk wrote:
Why don't you quit using it
and focus a little more on installing SunStudio (which isn't that hard
to do; at least not so hard as you want us to believe it is in another
thread). All I ever had to do was start the installer (in a GUI) and
-all- software was placed where it
On 19-Apr-09, at 10:38 AM, Uwe Dippel wrote:
casper@sun.com wrote:
We are back at square one; or, at the subject line.
I did a zpool status -v, everything was hunky dory.
Next, a power failure, 2 hours later, and this is what zpool
status -v thinks:
zpool status -v
pool: rpool
state:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:15:31 +0800
Uwe Dippel wrote:
> Reliability at power failure? That was my question, and I had to
> learn that the answer is 'no'.
Sorry Uwe, but the answer is yes. Assuming that your hardware is in
order. I've read quite some msgs from you here recently and all of them
mak
casper@sun.com wrote:
We are back at square one; or, at the subject line.
I did a zpool status -v, everything was hunky dory.
Next, a power failure, 2 hours later, and this is what zpool status -v
thinks:
zpool status -v
pool: rpool
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experience
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:41:39PM -0500, Tim wrote:
>
>On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Gary Mills <[1]mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
>wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:53:30PM -0400, Ellis, Mike wrote:
> > In case the writes are a problem: When zfs sends a sync-command
> t
>We are back at square one; or, at the subject line.
>I did a zpool status -v, everything was hunky dory.
>Next, a power failure, 2 hours later, and this is what zpool status -v
>thinks:
>
>zpool status -v
> pool: rpool
> state: ONLINE
>status: One or more devices has experienced an error result
casper@sun.com wrote:
I would suggest that you follow my recipe: not check the boot-archive
during a reboot. And then report back. (I'm assuming that that will take
several weeks)
We are back at square one; or, at the subject line.
I did a zpool status -v, everything was hunky dory.
35 matches
Mail list logo
