Why don't you see which byte differs, and how it does?
Maybe that would suggest the "failure mode". Is it the
same byte data in all affected files, for instance?
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Robert Watzlavick wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2011, at 13:14, Edward Ned Harvey
> wr
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
>> I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
>> make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
>> Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck comm
Shouldn't the choice of RAID type also
be based on the i/o requirements?
Anyway, with RAID-10, even a second
failed disk is not catastophic, so long
as it is not the counterpart of the first
failed disk, no matter the no. of disks.
(With 2-way mirrors.)
But that's why we do backups, right?
Mark
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
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;
>>
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,
>>
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:
>>>>&
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 Mar 24, 2011, at 7:23 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>> Generally, you choose your data pool config based on data size,
>> redundancy, and performance requirements. If those are all satisfied with
>> your single mirror, the only thing left for you to do is think about
>> splitting your data off onto a
On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:42 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nomen Nescio
>>
>> Hi ladies and gents, I've got a new Solaris 10 development box with ZFS
>> mirror root using 500G drives. I've got s
On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> All other
> things being equal, the 15k and the 7200 drive, which share
> electronics, will have the same max transfer rate at the OD.
Is that true? So the only difference is in the access time?
Mark
__
ords, fssnap_ufs doesn't solve the quiesce problem.
>
> On 1/31/2011 10:24 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>> Why do you say fssnap has the same problem?
>>
>> If it write locks the file system, it is only for a matter of seconds, as I
>> recall.
>>
>>
Why do you say fssnap has the same problem?
If it write locks the file system, it is only for a matter of seconds, as I
recall.
Years ago, I used it on a daily basis to do ufsdumps of large fs'es.
Mark
On Jan 30, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 5:26 PM, Joerg Schilling
It well may be that different methods are optimal for different use cases.
Mechanical disk vs. SSD; mirrored vs. raidz[123]; sparse vs. populated; etc.
It would be interesting to read more in this area, if papers are available.
I'll have to take a look. ... Or does someone have pointers?
Mark
On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 11:56 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>> Erik,
>>
>> just a hypothetical what-if ...
>>
>> In the case of resilvering on a mirrored disk, why not take a snapshot, and
>> then
>>
Erik,
just a hypothetical what-if ...
In the case of resilvering on a mirrored disk, why not take a snapshot, and then
resilver by doing a pure block copy from the snapshot? It would be sequential,
so long as the original data was unmodified; and random access in dealing with
the modified
On Dec 18, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Lanky Doodle wrote:
> Now this is getting really complex, but can you have server failover in ZFS,
> much like DFS-R in Windows - you point clients to a clustered ZFS namespace
> so if a complete server failed nothing is interrupted.
This is the purpose of an Ambe
Edward,
I recently installed a 7410 cluster, which had added Fiber Channel HBAs.
I know the site also has Blade 6000s running VMware, but no idea if they
were planning to run fiber to those blades (or even had the option to do so).
But perhaps FC would be an option for you?
Mark
On Nov 12, 201
On Nov 2, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 11/ 2/10 08:33 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm working with someone who replaced a failed 1TB drive (50% utilized),
>> on an X4540 running OS build 134, and I think something must be wrong.
>>
&
Hello,
I'm working with someone who replaced a failed 1TB drive (50% utilized),
on an X4540 running OS build 134, and I think something must be wrong.
Last Tuesday afternoon, zpool status reported:
scrub: resilver in progress for 306h0m, 63.87% done, 173h7m to go
and a week being 168 ho
20 matches
Mail list logo
