Robert Milkowski wrote:
Well, I don't know - that way you end doing RAID in ZFS anyway so
probably doing just RAID-10 in ZFS without ditto block would be
better.
The win with ditto blocks is allowing you to recover from a data
inconsistency at the fs level as opposed to dealing with a block e
raidz in this scenario.
Regards,
Ciaran.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anantha N.
Srirama
Sent: 18 October 2006 13:11
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: [zfs-discuss] Re: Configuring a 3510 for ZFS
Thanks for the stimulating
Thanks for the stimulating exchange of ideas/thoughts. I've always been a
believer of letting s/w do my RAID functions; for example in the old days of
VxVM I always preferred to do mirroring at the s/w level. It is my belief that
there is more 'meta' information available at the OS level than at
Hello Richard,
Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 6:18:21 PM, you wrote:
REP> [editorial comment below :-)]
REP> Matthew Ahrens wrote:
>> Torrey McMahon wrote:
>>> Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
> I'm glad you asked this question. We are currently expecting 3511
> st
[editorial comment below :-)]
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
I'm glad you asked this question. We are currently expecting 3511
storage sub-systems for our servers. We were wondering about their
configuration as well. This ZFS
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
I'm glad you asked this question. We are currently expecting 3511
storage sub-systems for our servers. We were wondering about their
configuration as well. This ZFS thing throws a wrench in the old line
think ;-) Seri
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
I'm glad you asked this question. We are currently expecting 3511
storage sub-systems for our servers. We were wondering about their
configuration as well. This ZFS thing throws a wrench in the old line
think ;-) Seriously, we now have to p
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
I'm glad you asked this question. We are currently expecting 3511 storage sub-systems for
our servers. We were wondering about their configuration as well. This ZFS thing throws a
wrench in the old line think ;-) Seriously, we now have to put on a new hat to figure out
I'm glad you asked this question. We are currently expecting 3511 storage
sub-systems for our servers. We were wondering about their configuration as
well. This ZFS thing throws a wrench in the old line think ;-) Seriously, we
now have to put on a new hat to figure out the best way to leverage b
