On 9 Apr 2011, at 12:59, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 04/09/2011 01:41 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Julian King
>>>
>>> Actually I think our figures more or less agree. 12 disks = 7 mbits
>
On 04/09/2011 01:41 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Julian King
>>
>> Actually I think our figures more or less agree. 12 disks = 7 mbits
>> 48 disks = 4x7mbits
>
> I know that sounds like terri
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Julian King
>
> Actually I think our figures more or less agree. 12 disks = 7 mbits
> 48 disks = 4x7mbits
I know that sounds like terrible performance to me. Any time I benchmark
disks, a che
On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:43, Marion Hakanson wrote:
>> which peak at around 7 Gb/s down a 10G link (in reality I don't need that
>> much because it is all about the IOPS for me). That is with just twelve 15k
>> disks.
>
> Depending on usage, I disagree with your bandwidth and latency figures
On Fri, Apr 8 at 22:03, Erik Trimble wrote:
I want my J4000's back, too. And, I still want something like HP's
MSA 70 (25 x 2.5" drive JBOD in a 2U formfactor)
Just noticed that SuperMicro is now selling a 4U 72-bay 2.5" 6Gbit/s
SAS chassis, the SC417. Unclear from the documentation how man
On Fri, Apr 8 at 18:08, Chris Banal wrote:
Can anyone comment on Solaris with zfs on HP systems? Do things work
reliably? When there is trouble how many hoops does HP make you jump
through (how painful is it to get a part replaced that isn't flat out
smokin')? Have you gotten bounced between v
On 4/8/2011 9:19 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 9/11 03:53 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
I'm not arguing. If it were up to me,
we'd still be selling those boxes.
Maybe you could whisper in the right ear?
:)
Three little words are all that Oracle Product Managers hear:
"Business case justificat
On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 9/11 03:53 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>> I'm not arguing. If it were up to me,
>> we'd still be selling those boxes.
>
> Maybe you could whisper in the right ear?
I wish. I'd have a long list if I could do that.
Mark
> :)
>
> --
> Ian.
On 04/ 9/11 03:53 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
I'm not arguing. If it were up to me,
we'd still be selling those boxes.
Maybe you could whisper in the right ear?
:)
--
Ian.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolar
On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 9/11 03:20 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote:
>>> On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
> and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and
> Sounds like many of us are in a similar situation.
>
> To clarify my original post. The goal here was to continue with what was
> a cost effective solution to some of our Storage requirements. I'm
> looking for hardware that wouldn't cause me to get the run around from
> the Oracle support fo
On 04/ 9/11 02:26 AM, David Magda wrote:
On Fri, April 8, 2011 10:06, Darren J Moffat wrote:
They may be storage appliances, but the user can not put their own
software on them. This limits the appliance to only the features that
Oracle decides to put on it.
Isn't that the very definition of
On 04/ 9/11 03:20 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and WebDav
out of the box.
And you have fairly unlimited options for
Can anyone comment on Solaris with zfs on HP systems? Do things work
reliably? When there is trouble how many hoops does HP make you jump
through (how painful is it to get a part replaced that isn't flat out
smokin')? Have you gotten bounced between vendors?
Thanks,
Chris
Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/8/2011 4:50 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, J.P. King wrote:
I can't speak for this particular situation or solution, but I think
in principle you are wrong. Networks are fast. Hard drives are
slow. Put a
But memory is much faster than either. It most situations the
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, J.P. King wrote:
I can't speak for this particular situation or solution, but I think in
principle you are wrong. Networks are fast. Hard drives are slow. Put a
But memory is much faster than either. It most situations the data
would already be buffered in the X4540's
On 4/8/2011 1:58 PM, Chris Banal wrote:
Sounds like many of us are in a similar situation.
To clarify my original post. The goal here was to continue with what
was a cost effective solution to some of our Storage requirements. I'm
looking for hardware that wouldn't cause me to get the run arou
Sounds like many of us are in a similar situation.
To clarify my original post. The goal here was to continue with what was
a cost effective solution to some of our Storage requirements. I'm
looking for hardware that wouldn't cause me to get the run around from
the Oracle support folks, finger
jp...@cam.ac.uk said:
> I can't speak for this particular situation or solution, but I think in
> principle you are wrong. Networks are fast. Hard drives are slow. Put a
> 10G connection between your storage and your front ends and you'll have the
> bandwidth[1]. Actually if you really were hi
No, I haven't tried a S7000, but I've tried other kinds of network
storage and from a design perspective, for my applications, it doesn't
even make a single bit of sense. I'm talking about high-volume real-time
video streaming, where you stream 500-1000 (x 8Mbit/s) live streams from
a machine ov
On 04/08/2011 06:59 PM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 17:47, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>> In short, I think the X4540 was an elegant and powerful system that
>> definitely had its market, especially in my area of work (digital video
>> processing - heavy on latency, throughput and IOPS - an are
On 08/04/2011 17:47, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
In short, I think the X4540 was an elegant and powerful system that
definitely had its market, especially in my area of work (digital video
processing - heavy on latency, throughput and IOPS - an area, where the
7000-series with its over-the-network acces
On 04/08/2011 05:20 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote:
>
>> On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and WebDav
out of the box.
And you h
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 08:29:31PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
...
> >I don't follow? What else would an X4540 or a 7xxx box
> >be used for, other than a storage appliance?
...
> No, I just wasn't clear - we use ours as storage/application servers.
> Th
On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
>>> and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and WebDav
>>> out of the box.
>>>
>>> And you have fairly unlimited options for application servers,
>>
On Fri, April 8, 2011 10:06, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> They may be storage appliances, but the user can not put their own
>> software on them. This limits the appliance to only the features that
>> Oracle decides to put on it.
>
> Isn't that the very definition of an Appliance ?
Yes, but the OP w
On 08/04/2011 14:59, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Erik Trimble wrote:
Sorry, I read the question differently, as in "I have X4500/X4540 now,
and want more of them, but Oracle doesn't sell them anymore, what can
I buy?". The 7000-series (now: Unified Storage) *are* storage applianc
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Erik Trimble wrote:
Sorry, I read the question differently, as in "I have X4500/X4540 now, and
want more of them, but Oracle doesn't sell them anymore, what can I buy?".
The 7000-series (now: Unified Storage) *are* storage appliances.
They may be storage appliances, but t
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Mark Sandrock wrote:
And you have fairly unlimited options for application servers,
once they are decoupled from the storage servers.
It doesn't seem like much of a drawback -- although it
The rather extreme loss of I/O performance (at least several orders of
magnitude) t
On 04/ 8/11 01:14 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
You have built-in storage failover with an AR cluster;
and they do NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, HTTP and WebDav
out of the box.
And you have fairly unlimited options for application servers,
once they are decoupled from the storage servers.
It doesn't seem like mu
On 04/ 8/11 09:49 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
The move seems to be to the Unified Storage (aka ZFS Storage) lin
On Apr 8, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
> While I understand everything at Oracle is "top sec
On 04/ 8/11 08:08 PM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X450
On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
>> On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
>>> While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X4500 / X4540? Does some other
>>>
On 4/8/2011 12:37 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X4500 / X4540? Does
some other Oracle / Sun partner mak
On 04/ 8/11 06:30 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X4500 / X4540? Does some
other Oracle / Sun partner make a comparable system that is fully
suppo
On 4/7/2011 10:25 AM, Chris Banal wrote:
While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X4500 / X4540? Does some
other Oracle / Sun partner make a comparable system that is fully
supported by Oracle / Sun?
http://www.oracle.co
While I understand everything at Oracle is "top secret" these days.
Does anyone have any insight into a next-gen X4500 / X4540? Does some
other Oracle / Sun partner make a comparable system that is fully
supported by Oracle / Sun?
http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/servers/prev
On Nov 9, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>
>> http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/?chs=847
>>
>> Stay away from the 24 port expander backplanes. I've gone thru several
>> and they still don't work right - timeout and dropped drives under load.
>> The 12-port works just fine c
>http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/?chs=847
>
>Stay away from the 24 port expander backplanes. I've gone thru several
>and they still don't work right - timeout and dropped drives under load.
>The 12-port works just fine connected to a variety of controllers. If you
>insist on the 24-po
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:51:02PM -0800, matthew patton wrote:
> > I have this with 36 2TB drives (and 2 separate boot drives).
> >
> > http://www.colfax-intl.com/jlrid/SpotLight_more_Acc.asp?L=134&S=58&B=2267
>
> That's just a Supermicro SC847.
>
> http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/
> I have this with 36 2TB drives (and 2 separate boot drives).
>
> http://www.colfax-intl.com/jlrid/SpotLight_more_Acc.asp?L=134&S=58&B=2267
That's just a Supermicro SC847.
http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/?chs=847
Stay away from the 24 port expander backplanes. I've gone thru sever
I have this with 36 2TB drives (and 2 separate boot drives).
http://www.colfax-intl.com/jlrid/SpotLight_more_Acc.asp?L=134&S=58&B=2267
It's not exactly the same (it has cons/pros), but it is definitely
less expensive. I'm running b147 on it with an LSI controller.
-Moazam
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at
Oracle have deleted the best ZFS platform I know, the X4540.
Does anyone know of an equivalent system? None of the current
Oracle/Sun offerings come close.
--
Ian.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.or
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:29:50PM +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Jens Elkner
> wrote:
...
> > Problem is pool1 - user homes! So GNOME/firefox/eclipse/subversion/soffice
...
> Flash-based read cache should help here by minimizing (metadata) read
> latency, and flash
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Jens Elkner
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 04:23:21PM +, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>> As to whether it makes sense (as opposed to two distinct physical
>> devices), you would have read cache hits competing with log writes for
>> bandwidth. I doubt both will be ple
On Dec 13, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Jens Elkner wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 04:23:21PM +, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
As to whether it makes sense (as opposed to two distinct physical
devices), you would have read cache hits competing with log writes
for
bandwidth. I doubt both will be pleased :-)
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 04:23:21PM +, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> As to whether it makes sense (as opposed to two distinct physical
> devices), you would have read cache hits competing with log writes for
> bandwidth. I doubt both will be pleased :-)
Hmm - good point. What I'm trying to accomplis
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 03:28:29PM +, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Jens Elkner wrote:
Hi Robert,
> >
> >just got a quote from our campus reseller, that readzilla and logzilla
> >are not available for the X4540 - hmm strange Anyway, wondering
> >whether it is possible/supported/would make sense
Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
As to whether it makes sense (as opposed to two distinct physical
devices), you would have read cache hits competing with log writes for
bandwidth. I doubt both will be pleased :-)
As usual it depends on your workload. In many real-life scenarios the
bandwidth probably won
As to whether it makes sense (as opposed to two distinct physical
devices), you would have read cache hits competing with log writes for
bandwidth. I doubt both will be pleased :-)
On 12/12/09, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Jens Elkner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just got a quote from our campus reseller, th
Jens Elkner wrote:
Hi,
just got a quote from our campus reseller, that readzilla and logzilla
are not available for the X4540 - hmm strange Anyway, wondering
whether it is possible/supported/would make sense to use a Sun Flash
Accelerator F20 PCIe Card in a X4540 instead of 2.5" SSDs?
If
Hi,
just got a quote from our campus reseller, that readzilla and logzilla
are not available for the X4540 - hmm strange Anyway, wondering
whether it is possible/supported/would make sense to use a Sun Flash
Accelerator F20 PCIe Card in a X4540 instead of 2.5" SSDs?
If so, is it possible to
> >> CFs designed for the professional photography
> market have better
> >> specifications than CFs designed for the consumer
> market.
> >>
> >
> > CF is pretty cheap, you can pick up 16GB-32GB from
> $80-$200 depending on
> > brand/quality. Assuming they do incorporate wear
> leveling, and
I have exactly these symptoms on 3 thumpers now.
2 x x4540s and 1 x x4500
Rebooting/Power cycling doesn't even bring them back. The only thing I found,
is that if I boot from the osol.2009.06 Cd, I can see all the drives
I had to reinstall the OS on one box.
I've only just recently upgraded them
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
Finally came to the reboot maintenance to reboot the x4540 to make
it see the newly replaced HDD.
I tried, reboot, then power-cycle, and reboot -- -r,
but I can not make the x4540 accept any HDD in that bay. I'm
starting to th
Nope, that it does not.
Ian Collins wrote:
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
Finally came to the reboot maintenance to reboot the x4540 to make it
see the newly replaced HDD.
I tried, reboot, then power-cycle, and reboot -- -r,
but I can not make the x4540 accept any HDD in that bay. I'm starting
t
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
Finally came to the reboot maintenance to reboot the x4540 to make it
see the newly replaced HDD.
I tried, reboot, then power-cycle, and reboot -- -r,
but I can not make the x4540 accept any HDD in that bay. I'm starting
to think that perhaps we did not lose the origin
Finally came to the reboot maintenance to reboot the x4540 to make it
see the newly replaced HDD.
I tried, reboot, then power-cycle, and reboot -- -r,
but I can not make the x4540 accept any HDD in that bay. I'm starting to
think that perhaps we did not lose the original HDD, but rather the
Well, to be fair, there were some special cases.
I know we had 3 separate occasions with broken HDDs, when we were using
UFS. 2 of these appeared to hang, and the 3rd only hung once we replaced
the disk. This is most likely due to use using UFS in zvol (for quotas).
We got an IDR patch, and e
Whoah!
"We have yet to experience losing a
disk that didn't force a reboot"
Do you have any notes on how many times this has happened Jorgen, or what steps
you've taken each time?
I appreciate you're probably more concerned with getting an answer to your
question, but if ZFS needs a reboot to
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Jorgen Lundman wrote:
>
> I suspect this is what it is all about:
>
> # devfsadm -v
> devfsadm[16283]: verbose: no devfs node or mismatched dev_t for
> /devices/p...@0,0/pci10de,3...@b/pci1000,1...@0/s...@5,0:a
> [snip]
>
> and indeed:
>
> brw-r- 1 root s
I suspect this is what it is all about:
# devfsadm -v
devfsadm[16283]: verbose: no devfs node or mismatched dev_t for
/devices/p...@0,0/pci10de,3...@b/pci1000,1...@0/s...@5,0:a
[snip]
and indeed:
brw-r- 1 root sys 30, 2311 Aug 6 15:34 s...@4,0:wd
crw-r- 1 root sys
x4540 snv_117
We lost a HDD last night, and it seemed to take out most of the bus or
something and forced us to reboot. (We have yet to experience losing a
disk that didn't force a reboot mind you).
So today, I'm looking at replacing the broken HDD, but no amount of work
makes it "turn on t
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
The presumption is that you are using UFS for the CF, not ZFS.
UFS is not COW, so there is a potential endurance problem for
blocks which are known to be rewritten many times. ZFS will not
have this problem, so if you use ZFS r
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
> The presumption is that you are using UFS for the CF, not ZFS.
> UFS is not COW, so there is a potential endurance problem for
> blocks which are known to be rewritten many times. ZFS will not
> have this problem, so if you use ZFS root, you are better
Paul B. Henson wrote:
So I was looking into the boot flash feature of the newer x4540, and
evidently it is simply a CompactFlash slot, with all of the disadvantages
and limitations of that type of media. The sun deployment guide recommends
minimizing writes to a CF boot device, in particular by N
So I was looking into the boot flash feature of the newer x4540, and
evidently it is simply a CompactFlash slot, with all of the disadvantages
and limitations of that type of media. The sun deployment guide recommends
minimizing writes to a CF boot device, in particular by NFS mounting /var
from a
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
If I wanted to swap between a 32GB SSD and a 1TB SATA drive, I guess I
would need to make a partition/slice on the TB drive of exactly the
size of the SSD?
Yes, but note that an SMI label hangs onto the outdated notion
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
> > If I wanted to swap between a 32GB SSD and a 1TB SATA drive, I guess I
> > would need to make a partition/slice on the TB drive of exactly the
> > size of the SSD?
>
> Yes, but note that an SMI label hangs onto the outdated notion of
> cylinders and y
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
I didn't find that exact part number, but I notice that manufacturing part
371-4196 32GB Solid State Drive, SATA Interface
is showing up in a number of systems. IIRC, this would be an Intel X25-E.
Hmm, the part numbe
On Wed, May 13 at 17:27, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Intel claims > 3,300 4kByte random write iops.
Is that before after the device gets full and starts needing to erase whole
pages to write new blocks 8-/?
The quoted numbers are minimums, not "up to" li
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
> I didn't find that exact part number, but I notice that manufacturing part
>371-4196 32GB Solid State Drive, SATA Interface
> is showing up in a number of systems. IIRC, this would be an Intel X25-E.
Hmm, the part number I provided was off an offi
Paul B. Henson wrote:
I see Sun has recently released part number XRA-ST1CH-32G2SSD, a 32GB SATA
SSD for the x4540 server.
I didn't find that exact part number, but I notice that manufacturing part
371-4196 32GB Solid State Drive, SATA Interface
is showing up in a number of systems. IIRC,
I see Sun has recently released part number XRA-ST1CH-32G2SSD, a 32GB SATA
SSD for the x4540 server.
We have five x4500's we purchased last year that we are deploying to
provide file and web services to our users. One issue that we have had is
horrible performance for the "single threaded process
onday, July 14, 2008 3:58 AM
To: Moore, Joe
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] X4540
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Moore, Joe wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn
>> I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already undercutting much
>> of the rest of its product line. These minor
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Moore, Joe wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn
>> I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already undercutting much
>> of the rest of its product line. These minor updates would allow
>> the X4540 to compete against much more expensive StorageTek SAN
>> hardware.
>
> Assuming, of c
On Jul 11, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> Yes, of course. But there is only one CF slot.
Cool coincidence that the following article on CF cards and DMA
transfers was posted to /.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/12/1851251
I take it that Sun's going ship/sell O
> Well, I'm not holding out much hope of Sun working
> with these suppliers any time soon. I asked Vmetro
> why they don't work with Sun considering how well ZFS
> seems to fit with their products, and this was the
> reply I got:
>
> "Micro Memory has a long history of working with Sun,
> and I w
Ian Collins wrote:
> Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> The best news, for many folks, is that you can boot from an
>> (externally pluggable) CF card, so that you don't have to burn
>> two disks for the OS.
>>
>>
> Can these be mirrored? I've been bitten by these cards failing (in a
> camera).
Richard Elling wrote:
>
> The best news, for many folks, is that you can boot from an
> (externally pluggable) CF card, so that you don't have to burn
> two disks for the OS.
>
Can these be mirrored? I've been bitten by these cards failing (in a
camera).
Ian
__
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Moore, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Features. RAS. Simplicity. Corporate Inertia (having storage admins
> who don't know OpenSolaris). Executive outings with StorageTek-logo'd
> golfballs. The last 2 aren't something I'd build a business case
> around,
Bob Friesenhahn
> I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already
> undercutting much of
> the rest of its product line. These minor updates would allow the
> X4540 to compete against much more expensive StorageTek SAN hardware.
Assuming, of course that the requirements for the more expensi
On Jul 10, 2008, at 12:42, Tim wrote:
> It's the same reason you don't see HDS or EMC rushing to adjust the
> price of
> the SYM or USP-V based on Sun releasing the thumpers.
No one ever got fired for buying EMC/HDS/NTAP
I know my company has "corporate standards" for various aspects of
Well, I'm not holding out much hope of Sun working with these suppliers any
time soon. I asked Vmetro why they don't work with Sun considering how well
ZFS seems to fit with their products, and this was the reply I got:
"Micro Memory has a long history of working with Sun, and I worked at Sun f
Richard Elling wrote:
> Torrey McMahon wrote:
>> Spencer Shepler wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>
Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot,
or using nvram with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing
for years) wou
Torrey McMahon wrote:
> Spencer Shepler wrote:
>
>> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Ross wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot, or
>>> using nvram with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing for
>>> years) would just be rediculous. Th
On Jul 10, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
> I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already undercutting much of
> the rest of its product line.
a) Failure to do so just means that someone else does, and wins the
customer.
b) A lot of "enterprise class" infrastructure wonks are v
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Ross wrote:
> >
> > As a NFS storage platform, you'd be beating EMC and NetApp on price,
> > spindle count, features and performance. I really hope somebody at
> > Sun considers this, and thinks a
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Ross wrote:
>
> As a NFS storage platform, you'd be beating EMC and NetApp on price,
> spindle count, features and performance. I really hope somebody at
> Sun considers this, and thinks about expanding the "What can you do
> with an x4540" section on the website to include
Spencer Shepler wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Ross wrote:
>
>
>> Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot, or
>> using nvram with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing for
>> years) would just be rediculous. This is nothing more than cache,
>> and eve
On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Ross wrote:
> Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot, or
> using nvram with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing for
> years) would just be rediculous. This is nothing more than cache,
> and even with the American patent system
Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot, or using nvram
with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing for years) would just be
rediculous. This is nothing more than cache, and even with the American patent
system I'd have though it hard to get that past the obviousne
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's a cracking upgrade Richard. I was hoping Sun would do
> something like this, so it's great to see it arrive.
>
> As others have said though, I think Sun are missing a trick by not working
> with Vmetro or Fusion-io to
I think it's a cracking upgrade Richard. I was hoping Sun would do something
like this, so it's great to see it arrive.
As others have said though, I think Sun are missing a trick by not working with
Vmetro or Fusion-io to add nvram cards to the range now. In particular, if Sun
were to work w
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>> So, I see Sun finally updated the Thumper, and it appears they're now
>> using a PCI-E backplane. Anyone happen to know what the chipset is?
>> Any chance we'll see an 8-port PCI-E SATA card finally??
>
> One
Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:52:27PM -0500, Tim wrote:
>
>> Is the 4540 still running a rageXL? I find that somewhat humorous if it's
>> an Nvidia chipset with ATI video :)
>>
>>
>
> According to SMBIOS there is an on-board device of type "AST2000 VGA".
>
Yes, I thi
Tim wrote:
>
> Is the 4540 still running a rageXL? I find that somewhat humorous if
> it's an Nvidia chipset with ATI video :)
Yes, it is part of the chip which handles the management interface.
I don't find this to be a contradiction, though. AMD bought ATI
and we're using AMD Quad-core CPUs.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:52:27PM -0500, Tim wrote:
>
> Is the 4540 still running a rageXL? I find that somewhat humorous if it's
> an Nvidia chipset with ATI video :)
>
According to SMBIOS there is an on-board device of type "AST2000 VGA".
- Eric
--
Eric Schrock, Fishworks
Might also want to have them talk to byteandswitch.
*
**"We went to the next-generation Intel processors [and] we have used the
latest generation of our Solaris ZFS software," he explains, adding that the
J4000 JBODs can also be connected to the X4540.*
Either the 4540 is using XEON's now, someone
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
