Richard Elling wrote:
> For the time being, these SATA disks will operate in IDE compatibility mode,
> so
> don't worry about the write cache. There is some debate about whether the
> write
> cache is a win at all, but that is another rat hole. Go ahead and split off
> some
> space for boot a
I'm having a heckuva time posting to individual replies (keep getting
exceptions).
I have a 1U rackmount server with 4 bays. I don't think there's any way to
squeeze in a small IDE drive, and I don't want to reduce the swap transfer rate
if I can avoid it.
The machine has 4 500 GB SATA drives,
Ian Collins wrote:
> Bung in (add a USB one if you don't have space) a small boot drive and
> use all the others for for ZFS.
Not a bad idea; I'll have to see where I can put one.
But, I thought I read somewhere that one can't use ZFS for swap. Or maybe I
read this:
"Slices should only be used
> Hi Rick,
>
> what do you think about this configuration:
>
> Part all disks like this
> 7GiB
> 493GiB
>
> Make a RAIDz1 out of the 493GiB partitions and a
> RAID5 out of the 7GiB
> partitions. Create a swap, and the root in the RAID5,
> the dirs with the
> user data in the ZFS storage.
>
> Ba
I'm putting together a NexentaOS (b65)-based server that has 4 500 GB drives on
it. Currently it has two, set up as a ZFS mirror. I'm able to boot Nexenta from
it, and it seems to work ok. But, as I've learned, the mirror is not properly
redundant, and so I can't just have a drive fail (when I p
Hi. I've been reading the ZFS admin guide, and I don't understand the
distinction between "adding" a device and "attaching" a device to a pool?
TIA
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
htt
>From
>(http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=199903525)
---
[...]
Seeking to clarify a statement made on Monday by Brian Croll, senior director
of Mac OS X Product Marketing, to two InformationWeek reporters that Apple's
new "Leopard" operating system would not inclu
>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Rick Mann wrote:
>> ZFS Readonly implemntation is loaded!
>Is that a copy-n-paste error, or is that typo in the actual output?
It's a typo in the actual output.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zf
Since the copy I have I did not get through normal channels, I don't have WWDC
access to the dev site, so I don't know if it's there or not. However, my
friend looked, and couldn't find it, either.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-di
I just installed the Leopard beta that was distributed at WWDC. Sadly, the
installer provided no ZFS option (the only options were HFS Extended Journaled
and a case-sensitive version of the same).
However, typing this in the terminal:
$ sudo zpool status
Returned this:
ZFS Readonly implemntat
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:38:10PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
> When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-)
I'm hoping for L4, myself.
http://ertos.nicta.com.au/software/darbat/
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-dis
>From Macintouch (http://macintouch.com/#other.2007.06.07):
---
On stage Wednesday in Washington D.C., Sun Microsystems Inc. CEO Jonathan
Schwartz revealed that his company's open-source ZFS file system will replace
Apple's long-used HFS+ in Mac OS X 10.5, a.k.a. "Leopard," when the new
operati
12 matches
Mail list logo
