On 4/28/07, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 05:02:47PM +0100, Peter Tribble wrote:
>
> In practical terms, backing up much over a terabyte
> in a single chunk isn't ideal. What I would like to see
> here is more flexibility from something like Legato
> in terms
Erblichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jorg,
>
> Do you really think that ANY FS actually needs to support
> more FS objects? If that would be an issue, why not create
> more FSs?
>
> A multi-TB FS SHOULD support 100MB+/GB size FS objects, which
> IMO is the more commo
Jorg,
Do you really think that ANY FS actually needs to support
more FS objects? If that would be an issue, why not create
more FSs?
A multi-TB FS SHOULD support 100MB+/GB size FS objects, which
IMO is the more common use. I have seen this alot in video
the Sun's equivalent is SAMFS and especially the latest version (4.6)
which can be entirely used for backup/restore/archive
SAMFS will be opensource very soon
s.
On 4/28/07, Rayson Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/28/07, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what you *really* want i
On 4/28/07, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So what you *really* want is TSM. I wonder if IBM would ever
consider supporting ZFS.
Just wondering, does Sun/STK have something similar to TSM??
Rayson
-brian
--
"Perl can be fast and elegant as much as J2EE can be fast and elegant
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 05:02:47PM +0100, Peter Tribble wrote:
>
> In practical terms, backing up much over a terabyte
> in a single chunk isn't ideal. What I would like to see
> here is more flexibility from something like Legato
> in terms of defining schedules that would allow us to
> back this
On 4/28/07, Yaniv Aknin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Following my previous post across several mailing lists regarding multi-tera
volumes with small files on them, I'd be glad if people could share real life
numbers on large filesystems and their experience with them. I'm slowly coming
to a real
"Claus Guttesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm currently using 4 TB partitions with vxfs. When hosted on FreeBSD
> > > I was limited to 2 TB but using UFS2/FreeBSD was impractical for
> > > several reasons. With vxfs 4 TB is a practical limit, when files are
> >
> > Could you please give so
> I'm currently using 4 TB partitions with vxfs. When hosted on FreeBSD
> I was limited to 2 TB but using UFS2/FreeBSD was impractical for
> several reasons. With vxfs 4 TB is a practical limit, when files are
Could you please give some hints on these reasons? I only know that
FreeBSDs UFS2 is no
"Claus Guttesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm currently using 4 TB partitions with vxfs. When hosted on FreeBSD
> I was limited to 2 TB but using UFS2/FreeBSD was impractical for
> several reasons. With vxfs 4 TB is a practical limit, when files are
Could you please give some hints on these r
Following my previous post across several mailing lists regarding multi-tera
volumes with small files on them, I'd be glad if people could share real life
numbers on large filesystems and their experience with them. I'm slowly coming
to a realization that regardless of theoretical filesystem ca
Yaniv Aknin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Following my previous post across several mailing lists regarding multi-tera
> volumes with small files on them, I'd be glad if people could share real life
> numbers on large filesystems and their experience with them. I'm slowly
> coming to a realizati
Following my previous post across several mailing lists regarding multi-tera
volumes with small files on them, I'd be glad if people could share real life
numbers on large filesystems and their experience with them. I'm slowly coming
to a realization that regardless of theoretical filesystem cap
13 matches
Mail list logo
