On Fri, Apr 8 at 22:03, Erik Trimble wrote:
I want my J4000's back, too. And, I still want something like HP's
MSA 70 (25 x 2.5" drive JBOD in a 2U formfactor)
Just noticed that SuperMicro is now selling a 4U 72-bay 2.5" 6Gbit/s
SAS chassis, the SC417. Unclear from the documentation how man
On Fri, Apr 8 at 18:08, Chris Banal wrote:
Can anyone comment on Solaris with zfs on HP systems? Do things work
reliably? When there is trouble how many hoops does HP make you jump
through (how painful is it to get a part replaced that isn't flat out
smokin')? Have you gotten bounced between v
On 4/8/2011 9:19 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 9/11 03:53 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
I'm not arguing. If it were up to me,
we'd still be selling those boxes.
Maybe you could whisper in the right ear?
:)
Three little words are all that Oracle Product Managers hear:
"Business case justificat
On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 9/11 03:53 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>> I'm not arguing. If it were up to me,
>> we'd still be selling those boxes.
>
> Maybe you could whisper in the right ear?
I wish. I'd have a long list if I could do that.
Mark
> :)
>
> --
> Ian.
On 04/ 9/11 03:53 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
I'm not arguing. If it were up to me,
we'd still be selling those boxes.
Maybe you could whisper in the right ear?
:)
--
Ian.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolar
On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 9/11 03:20 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote:
>>> On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
> and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and
> Sounds like many of us are in a similar situation.
>
> To clarify my original post. The goal here was to continue with what was
> a cost effective solution to some of our Storage requirements. I'm
> looking for hardware that wouldn't cause me to get the run around from
> the Oracle support fo
On 04/ 9/11 02:26 AM, David Magda wrote:
On Fri, April 8, 2011 10:06, Darren J Moffat wrote:
They may be storage appliances, but the user can not put their own
software on them. This limits the appliance to only the features that
Oracle decides to put on it.
Isn't that the very definition of
On 04/ 9/11 03:20 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and WebDav
out of the box.
And you have fairly unlimited options for
Can anyone comment on Solaris with zfs on HP systems? Do things work
reliably? When there is trouble how many hoops does HP make you jump
through (how painful is it to get a part replaced that isn't flat out
smokin')? Have you gotten bounced between vendors?
Thanks,
Chris
Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/8/2011 4:50 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, J.P. King wrote:
I can't speak for this particular situation or solution, but I think
in principle you are wrong. Networks are fast. Hard drives are
slow. Put a
But memory is much faster than either. It most situations the
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, J.P. King wrote:
I can't speak for this particular situation or solution, but I think in
principle you are wrong. Networks are fast. Hard drives are slow. Put a
But memory is much faster than either. It most situations the data
would already be buffered in the X4540's
On 4/8/2011 1:58 PM, Chris Banal wrote:
Sounds like many of us are in a similar situation.
To clarify my original post. The goal here was to continue with what
was a cost effective solution to some of our Storage requirements. I'm
looking for hardware that wouldn't cause me to get the run arou
Sounds like many of us are in a similar situation.
To clarify my original post. The goal here was to continue with what was
a cost effective solution to some of our Storage requirements. I'm
looking for hardware that wouldn't cause me to get the run around from
the Oracle support folks, finger
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Arjun YK wrote:
> I have a situation where a host, which is booted off its 'rpool', need
> to temporarily import the 'rpool' of another host, edit some files in
> it, and export the pool back retaining its original name 'rpool'. Can
> this be done ?
Yes you can do
jp...@cam.ac.uk said:
> I can't speak for this particular situation or solution, but I think in
> principle you are wrong. Networks are fast. Hard drives are slow. Put a
> 10G connection between your storage and your front ends and you'll have the
> bandwidth[1]. Actually if you really were hi
On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 04/08/2011 07:22 PM, J.P. King wrote:
>>
>>> No, I haven't tried a S7000, but I've tried other kinds of network
>>> storage and from a design perspective, for my applications, it doesn't
>>> even make a single bit of sense. I'm talking about high-vo
On 04/08/2011 07:22 PM, J.P. King wrote:
>
>> No, I haven't tried a S7000, but I've tried other kinds of network
>> storage and from a design perspective, for my applications, it doesn't
>> even make a single bit of sense. I'm talking about high-volume real-time
>> video streaming, where you strea
No, I haven't tried a S7000, but I've tried other kinds of network
storage and from a design perspective, for my applications, it doesn't
even make a single bit of sense. I'm talking about high-volume real-time
video streaming, where you stream 500-1000 (x 8Mbit/s) live streams from
a machine ov
On 04/08/2011 06:59 PM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 17:47, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>> In short, I think the X4540 was an elegant and powerful system that
>> definitely had its market, especially in my area of work (digital video
>> processing - heavy on latency, throughput and IOPS - an are
On 08/04/2011 17:47, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
In short, I think the X4540 was an elegant and powerful system that
definitely had its market, especially in my area of work (digital video
processing - heavy on latency, throughput and IOPS - an area, where the
7000-series with its over-the-network acces
On 04/08/2011 05:20 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote:
>
>> On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and WebDav
out of the box.
And you h
* Arjun YK (arju...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let me add another query.
> I would assume it would be perfectly ok to choose any name for root
> pool, instead of 'rpool', during the OS install. Please suggest
> otherwise.
While there is nothing special about the name 'rpool' (thus you *could*
ch
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 08:29:31PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
...
> >I don't follow? What else would an X4540 or a 7xxx box
> >be used for, other than a storage appliance?
...
> No, I just wasn't clear - we use ours as storage/application servers.
> Th
On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
>>> and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and WebDav
>>> out of the box.
>>>
>>> And you have fairly unlimited options for application servers,
>>
Arjun,
Yes, you an choose any name for the root pool, but an existing
limitation is that you can't rename the root pool by using the
zpool export/import with new name feature.
Too much internal boot info is tied to the root pool name.
What info are you changing? Instead, could you create a new
On Fri, April 8, 2011 10:06, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> They may be storage appliances, but the user can not put their own
>> software on them. This limits the appliance to only the features that
>> Oracle decides to put on it.
>
> Isn't that the very definition of an Appliance ?
Yes, but the OP w
On 08/04/2011 14:59, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Erik Trimble wrote:
Sorry, I read the question differently, as in "I have X4500/X4540 now,
and want more of them, but Oracle doesn't sell them anymore, what can
I buy?". The 7000-series (now: Unified Storage) *are* storage applianc
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Erik Trimble wrote:
Sorry, I read the question differently, as in "I have X4500/X4540 now, and
want more of them, but Oracle doesn't sell them anymore, what can I buy?".
The 7000-series (now: Unified Storage) *are* storage appliances.
They may be storage appliances, but t
NOTE: when you modify your root pool on a different system, throw away the
zfs.cache file. (Earlier implementation of a bug where if you rename your
root pool and then your re-import it under a different name, zfs claims to
have found two pools and then starts to corrupt them)
Casper
Also u
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Mark Sandrock wrote:
And you have fairly unlimited options for application servers,
once they are decoupled from the storage servers.
It doesn't seem like much of a drawback -- although it
The rather extreme loss of I/O performance (at least several orders of
magnitude) t
On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and WebDav
out of the box.
And you have fairly unlimited options for application servers,
once they are decoupled from the storage servers.
It doesn't seem like mu
On 04/ 8/11 09:49 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
The move seems to be to the Unified Storage (aka ZFS Storage) lin
On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Karl Wagner wrote:
> One of them was simply an alternative way to do a "live CD" environment. As
> ZFS already does COW etc, it would avoid all the hassle you get in e.g.
> linux. You could have a ZFS vdev on the CD, then use a RAM disk as a second
> vdev.
IIRC this id
> -Original Message-
> From: Tomas Ögren [mailto:st...@acc.umu.se]
> Sent: 08 April 2011 11:23
> To: Karl Wagner
> Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Read-only vdev
>
> On 08 April, 2011 - Karl Wagner sent me these 3,5K bytes:
>
> > Hi everyone.
> >
> >
> >
> > I
On 08 April, 2011 - Karl Wagner sent me these 3,5K bytes:
> Hi everyone.
>
>
>
> I was just wondering if there was a way to for a specific vdev in a pool to
> be read-only?
>
>
>
> I can think of several uses for this, but would need to know if it was
> possible before thinking them throug
Hi everyone.
I was just wondering if there was a way to for a specific vdev in a pool to
be read-only?
I can think of several uses for this, but would need to know if it was
possible before thinking them through properly.
Cheers
Mouse
___
zf
On Apr 8, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
> While I understand everything at Oracle is "top sec
On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X450
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Stephan Budach wrote:
> You can re-name a zpool at import time by simply issueing:
>
> zpool import
Yes, I know :)
The last question from Arjun was can we "choose any name for root
pool, instead of 'rpool', during the OS install" :D
--
Fajar
__
On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
>> On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
>>> While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X4500 / X4540? Does some other
>>>
On 4/8/2011 12:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X4500 / X4540? Does
some other Oracle / Sun partner mak
>On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Arjun YK wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Let me add another query.
>> I would assume it would be perfectly ok to choose any name for root
>> pool, instead of 'rpool', during the OS install. Please suggest
>> otherwise.
>
>Have you tried it?
>
>Last time I try, the pool name i
On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X4500 / X4540? Does some
other Oracle / Sun partner make a comparable system that is fully
suppo
Am 08.04.11 09:31, schrieb Fajar A. Nugraha:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Arjun YK wrote:
Hi,
Let me add another query.
I would assume it would be perfectly ok to choose any name for root
pool, instead of 'rpool', during the OS install. Please suggest
otherwise.
Have you tried it?
Last ti
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Arjun YK wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let me add another query.
> I would assume it would be perfectly ok to choose any name for root
> pool, instead of 'rpool', during the OS install. Please suggest
> otherwise.
Have you tried it?
Last time I try, the pool name is predetermi
Hi,
Let me add another query.
I would assume it would be perfectly ok to choose any name for root
pool, instead of 'rpool', during the OS install. Please suggest
otherwise.
Thanks
Arjun
On 4/8/11, Arjun YK wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a situation where a host, which is booted off its 'rpool', nee
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Arjun YK wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a situation where a host, which is booted off its 'rpool', need
> to temporarily import the 'rpool' of another host, edit some files in
> it, and export the pool back retaining its original name 'rpool'. Can
> this be done ?
>
> H
Hello,
I have a situation where a host, which is booted off its 'rpool', need
to temporarily import the 'rpool' of another host, edit some files in
it, and export the pool back retaining its original name 'rpool'. Can
this be done ?
Here is what I am trying to do:
# zpool import -R /a rpool temp
49 matches
Mail list logo
