Out of interest, and reasonably on-topic, can anyone predict
performance comparison (CIFS) between these two setups?
1) Dedicated Windows 2003 Server, Intel hardware SATA RAID controller
(single raid 5 array, 8 disks)
2) OpenSolaris+ZFS+CIFS, 8 drives with a SuperMicro controller
Hi all,
I have built out an 8TB SAN at home using OpenSolaris + ZFS. I have
yet to put it into 'production' as a lot of the issues raised on this
mailing list are putting me off trusting my data onto the platform
right now.
Throughout time, I have stored my personal data on NetWare and now NT
an
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The exception to the "rule" of multiple 12v output sections is PC
>> Power & Cooling - who claim that there is no technical advantage to
>> having multiple 12v outputs (and this "feature" is only a marketing
>> gimmick). Bu
2008/10/6 mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I am trying to finish building a system and I kind of need to pick
> working NIC and onboard SATA chipsets (video is not a big deal - I can
> get a silent PCIe card for that, I already know one which works great)
>
> I need 8 onboard SATA. I would prefer Intel
2008/9/30 Jean Dion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you want performance you do not put all your I/O across the same physical
> wire. Once again you cannot go faster than the physical wire can support
> (CAT5E, CAT6, fibre). No matter if it is layer 2 or not. Using VLAN on
> single port you "share" the
2008/9/30 Jean Dion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Simple. You cannot go faster than the slowest link.
That is indeed correct, but what is the slowest link when using a
Layer 2 VLAN? You made a broad statement that iSCSI 'requires' a
dedicated, standalone network. I do not believe this is the case.
> Any
2008/9/30 Jean Dion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> iSCSI requires dedicated network and not a shared network or even VLAN.
> Backup cause large I/O that fill your network quickly. Like ans SAN today.
Could you clarify why it is not suitable to use VLANs for iSCSI?
__
2008/9/17 Peter Tribble:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:40 AM, gm_sjo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Am I right in thinking though that for every raidz1/2 vdev, you're
>> effectively losing the storage of one/two disks in that vdev?
>
> Well yeah - you've got
Am I right in thinking though that for every raidz1/2 vdev, you're
effectively losing the storage of one/two disks in that vdev?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
2008/9/15 gm_sjo:
> 2008/9/15 Ben Rockwood:
>> On Thumpers I've created single pools of 44 disks, in 11 disk RAIDZ2's.
>> I've come to regret this. I recommend keeping pools reasonably sized
>> and to keep stripes thinner than this.
>
> Could you clarify
2008/9/12 Malachi de Ælfweald:
> I'd say that if you are planning on using Windows to host the VMs, then
> either vmware or virtualbox is your best bet. If you are looking to have the
> OpenSolaris box host the VMs, xVM might be a better choice.
I'm not - as per my original post, the vmware host
2008/9/12 Michael Schuster:
> Solaris provide CIFS support natively too - maybe you can save yourself the
> hassle of going through the vmware + windows combo.
There will be approx. 20 vmware guests running on this infrastructure,
so having a windows guest there for serving files isn't a problem.
2008/9/12 Malachi de Ælfweald:
> Currently, you can mirror your boot but not raidz2 it. I'd recommend using 2
> of the drives for a mirrored boot and the other 6 drives for raidz2. I used
> 2x Addonics AE5RCS35NSA to hold the drives to give me hot swappability.
Sorry, forgot to mention - I hav
Hi all,
I'm about to embark on my first voyage into ZFS (and Solaris, frankly) as it
seems very appealing for a low-cost SAN/NAS solution. I am in the process of
building up a HCL-compliant whitebox server which ultimately will contain
8x1TB SATA disks.
I would appreciate some advice and recomme
14 matches
Mail list logo
