On Mar 18, 2011, at 21:16, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>> I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun.
>>
>> FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe?
>
> Fbsd currently has a very old zpool version, not suitable for running with
> SLOGs, since if you lose it, you m
ZFSv28 is in HEAD now and will be out in 8.3.
ZFS + HAST in 9.x means being able to cluster off different hardware.
In regards to OpenSolaris and Indiana - can somebody clarify the relationship
there? It was clear with OpenSolaris that the latest/greatest ZFS would always
be available since it
> I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun.
>
> FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe?
Fbsd currently has a very old zpool version, not suitable for running with
SLOGs, since if you lose it, you may lose the pool, which isn't very amusing...
Vennlige hilsener
Hi David,
Caught your note about bonnie, actually do some testing myself over the weekend.
All on older hardware for fun - dual opteron 285 with 16GB RAM. Disk systems
is off a pair of SuperMicro SATA cards, with a combination of WD enterprise and
Seagate ES 1TB drives. No ZIL, no L2ARC, no t
I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun.
FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe?
Not here quite yet, but it is something being looked at by an F500 that I am
currently on contract with.
www.freenas.org, www.ixsystems.com.
Not saying this would be the right so
Thanks for thinking about us, Paul.
A few quick thoughts:
a) Nexenta Core Platform is a bare-bones OS. No GUI, in other words (no
X11.) It might well suit you.
b) NCP 3 will not have an upgrade path to NCP 4. Its simply too much
change in the underlying packaging.
c) NCP 4 is still 5-6 month
On 18/03/11 5:56 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> We've been running Solaris 10 for the past couple of years, primarily to
> leverage zfs to provide storage for about 40,000 faculty, staff, and
> students ... and at this point want to start reevaluating our best
> migration option to move forward from S
I'm in a similar position, so I'll be curious what kinds of responses you
get. I can give you a thumbnail sketch of what I've looked at so far:
I evaluated FreeBSD, and ruled it out because I need NFSv4, and FreeBSD's
NFSv4 support is still in an early stage. The NFS stability and performance
ju
We've been running Solaris 10 for the past couple of years, primarily to
leverage zfs to provide storage for about 40,000 faculty, staff, and
students as well as about 1000 groups. Access is provided via NFSv4,
CIFS (by samba), and http/https (including a local module allowing
filesystem acl's
Please ignore. This was sent from the wrong account, and another copy was
sent from the correct one.
Sorry
> -Original Message-
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Karl Wagner
> Sent: 17 March 2011 15:44
> To: zfs-discus
Hi all
I have only just seen this, and thought someone may be able to help.
On heavy IO activity, my Solaris 11 Express box hosting a ZFS data pool
crashes. It seems to show page faults in several things, including nfsd,
sched, zpool-tank and automountd.
I get the following in the logs:
Mar 17
On Fri, March 18, 2011 08:28, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> From: David Magda [mailto:dma...@ee.ryerson.ca]
>> #2 is fixed in OpenSolaris as of snv_129:
>>
>> The new limit is 1024--the same maximum number of groups as Windows
>> supports. Unlikely that it will be back ported to Solaris 10 though (it
> From: David Magda [mailto:dma...@ee.ryerson.ca]
>
> >> 2. Unix / Solaris limitation of 16 / 32 group membership
> >>
> > I don't think you're going to eliminate #2.
>
> #2 is fixed in OpenSolaris as of snv_129:
>
> The new limit is 1024--the same maximum number of groups as Windows
> supports.
13 matches
Mail list logo
