On August 19, 2006 10:53:55 AM -0700 Eric Redmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sun Cluster 3.2: New Features
wow, this makes 3.1 sound like dog food.
-frank
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mail
George Wilson wrote On 08/18/06 14:08,:
Frank,
The SC 3.2 beta maybe closed but I'm forwarding your request to Eric
Redmond.
The Sun Cluster 3.2 Beta program has been extended. You can apply for
the Beta via this URL:
https://feedbackprograms.sun.com/callout/default.html?callid={11B4
Frank,
The SC 3.2 beta maybe closed but I'm forwarding your request to Eric
Redmond.
Thanks,
George
Frank Cusack wrote:
On August 10, 2006 6:04:38 PM -0700 eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you're doing HA-ZFS (which is SunCluster 3.2 - only available in
beta right now),
Is the 3
On August 10, 2006 6:04:38 PM -0700 eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're doing HA-ZFS (which is SunCluster 3.2 - only available in beta right
now),
Is the 3.2 beta publicly available? I can only locate 3.1.
-frank
___
zfs-discuss maili
After I saw that ZFS performance (when the box isn't stuck) is about 3
times lower than UFS/VxFS, I understood I should wait with ZFS for
Solaris 11official release.
I don't believe that it's possible to do some magic with my setup and
increase the ZFS performance 3 times. Fix me if I'm wrong.
On 8/11/06, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leon Koll wrote:
> On 8/11/06, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Leon Koll wrote:
>>
>> > <...>
>> >
>> >> So having 4 pools isn't a recommended config - i would destroy
>> those 4
>> >> pools and just create 1 RAID-0 pool:
>> >> #zp
Leon Koll wrote:
On 8/11/06, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leon Koll wrote:
> <...>
>
>> So having 4 pools isn't a recommended config - i would destroy
those 4
>> pools and just create 1 RAID-0 pool:
>> #zpool create sfsrocks c4t00173801014Bd0 c4t00173801014Cd0
>> c4t00173
On 8/11/06, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leon Koll wrote:
> <...>
>
>> So having 4 pools isn't a recommended config - i would destroy those 4
>> pools and just create 1 RAID-0 pool:
>> #zpool create sfsrocks c4t00173801014Bd0 c4t00173801014Cd0
>> c4t001738010140001Cd0 c4t00173
Hello eric,
Friday, August 11, 2006, 3:04:38 AM, you wrote:
ek> Leon Koll wrote:
>> <...>
>>
>>> So having 4 pools isn't a recommended config - i would destroy those 4
>>> pools and just create 1 RAID-0 pool:
>>> #zpool create sfsrocks c4t00173801014Bd0 c4t00173801014Cd0
>>> c4t001738010
Leon Koll wrote:
<...>
So having 4 pools isn't a recommended config - i would destroy those 4
pools and just create 1 RAID-0 pool:
#zpool create sfsrocks c4t00173801014Bd0 c4t00173801014Cd0
c4t001738010140001Cd0 c4t0017380101400012d0
each of those devices is a 64GB lun, right?
I di
<...>
So having 4 pools isn't a recommended config - i would destroy those 4
pools and just create 1 RAID-0 pool:
#zpool create sfsrocks c4t00173801014Bd0 c4t00173801014Cd0
c4t001738010140001Cd0 c4t0017380101400012d0
each of those devices is a 64GB lun, right?
I did it - created one po
Leon Koll wrote:
On 8/8/06, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leon Koll wrote:
> I performed a SPEC SFS97 benchmark on Solaris 10u2/Sparc with 4 64GB
> LUNs, connected via FC SAN.
> The filesystems that were created on LUNS: UFS,VxFS,ZFS.
> Unfortunately the ZFS test couldn't complete b
On 8/8/06, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leon Koll wrote:
> I performed a SPEC SFS97 benchmark on Solaris 10u2/Sparc with 4 64GB
> LUNs, connected via FC SAN.
> The filesystems that were created on LUNS: UFS,VxFS,ZFS.
> Unfortunately the ZFS test couldn't complete bacuase the box was h
Leon Koll wrote:
I performed a SPEC SFS97 benchmark on Solaris 10u2/Sparc with 4 64GB
LUNs, connected via FC SAN.
The filesystems that were created on LUNS: UFS,VxFS,ZFS.
Unfortunately the ZFS test couldn't complete bacuase the box was hung
under very moderate load (3000 IOPs).
Additional tests
On Mon, Leon Koll wrote:
> I performed a SPEC SFS97 benchmark on Solaris 10u2/Sparc with 4 64GB
> LUNs, connected via FC SAN.
> The filesystems that were created on LUNS: UFS,VxFS,ZFS.
> Unfortunately the ZFS test couldn't complete bacuase the box was hung
> under very moderate load (3000 IOPs).
>
I performed a SPEC SFS97 benchmark on Solaris 10u2/Sparc with 4 64GB
LUNs, connected via FC SAN.
The filesystems that were created on LUNS: UFS,VxFS,ZFS.
Unfortunately the ZFS test couldn't complete bacuase the box was hung
under very moderate load (3000 IOPs).
Additional tests were done using UFS
16 matches
Mail list logo
