On 2/15/2011 1:37 PM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
On 2/14/2011 10:37 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
That said, given that SAN NVRAM caches are true write caches (and not
a ZIL-like thing), it should be relatively simple to swamp one with
write requests (most SANs have little more than 1GB of cache), at
wh
On 2/14/2011 10:37 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
That said, given that SAN NVRAM caches are true write caches (and not
a ZIL-like thing), it should be relatively simple to swamp one with
write requests (most SANs have little more than 1GB of cache), at
which point, the SAN will be blocking on flushi
On 2/14/2011 3:52 PM, Gary Mills wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:04:18PM -0500, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Gary Mills wrote:
Is there any reason not to use one LUN per RAID group?
[...]
In other words, if you build a zpool with one vdev of 10GB and
another with
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:04:18PM -0500, Paul Kraus wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Gary Mills wrote:
> >
> > Is there any reason not to use one LUN per RAID group?
[...]
> In other words, if you build a zpool with one vdev of 10GB and
> another with two vdev's each of 5GB (both com
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Gary Mills wrote:
> I realize that it is possible to configure more than one LUN per RAID
> group on the storage device, but doesn't ZFS assume that each LUN
> represents an independant disk, and schedule I/O accordingly? In that
> case, wouldn't ZFS I/O scheduli
With ZFS on a Solaris server using storage on a SAN device, is it
reasonable to configure the storage device to present one LUN for each
RAID group? I'm assuming that the SAN and storage device are
sufficiently reliable that no additional redundancy is necessary on
the Solaris ZFS server. I'm als
