Disclaimer: I haven't used LUNs with ZFS, so take this with a grain of salt.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Morris Hooten wrote:
> I'm creating a zpool that is 25TB in size.
>
> What are the recommendations in regards to LUN sizes?
>
The first standard advice I can give is that ZFS wants to b
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Morris Hooten wrote:
> I'm creating a zpool that is 25TB in size.
>
> What are the recommendations in regards to LUN sizes?
>
> For example:
>
> Should I have 4 x 6.25 TB LUNS to add to the zpool or 20 x 1.25TB LUNs to
> add to the pool?
>
> Or does it depend on th
I'm creating a zpool that is 25TB in size.
What are the recommendations in regards to LUN sizes?
For example:
Should I have 4 x 6.25 TB LUNS to add to the zpool or 20 x 1.25TB LUNs to
add to the pool?
Or does it depend on the size of the san disks themselves?
Or should I divide the zpool up a
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Jerry Kemp wrote:
Thanks for the SIIG pointer, most of the stuff I had archived from this
list pointed to LSI products.
I poked around on the site and reviewed SIIG's SATA and SAS HBA. I also
hit up their search engine. I'm not implying I did an all inclusive
search, but
- Forwarded message from Josh Paetzel -
From: Josh Paetzel
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:55:22 -0700
To: freenas-annou...@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Freenas-announce] FreeNAS 8.3.0-RELEASE
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
rv:13.0) Gecko/20120621 Thunderbird/13.0.1
-
I've been using this card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816117157
for my Solaris/Open Indiana installations because it has 8 ports. One of the
issues that this card seems to have, is that certain failures can cause other
secondary problems in other drives on the same SA
2012-10-26 12:29, Karl Wagner wrote:
Does it not store a separate checksum for a parity block? If so, it
should not even need to recalculate the parity: assuming checksums match
for all data and parity blocks, the data is good.
No, for the on-disk sector allocation over M disks, zfs raidzN writ
Does it not store a separate checksum for a parity block? If so, it
should not even need to recalculate the parity: assuming checksums match
for all data and parity blocks, the data is good.
I could understand
why it would not store a checksum for a parity block. It is not really
necessary: Pa
