On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:42:21AM +0100, Grégory Giannoni wrote:
>
> Le 29 nov. 2012 à 09:27, Pasi Kärkkäinen a écrit :
> >> The LSI 9240-4I was not able to connect to the 25-drives bay ; Not tested
> >> LSI 9260-16I or LSI 9280-24i.
> >>
> >
> > What was the problem connecting LSI 9240-4i to
Le 29 nov. 2012 à 09:27, Pasi Kärkkäinen a écrit :
>> The LSI 9240-4I was not able to connect to the 25-drives bay ; Not tested
>> LSI 9260-16I or LSI 9280-24i.
>>
>
> What was the problem connecting LSI 9240-4i to the 25-drives bay?
>
The 25-drives backplane needs two SFF-8087 (multilane ca
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 08:52:06AM +0100, Grégory Giannoni wrote:
>
> The LSI 9240-4I was not able to connect to the 25-drives bay ; Not tested
> LSI 9260-16I or LSI 9280-24i.
>
What was the problem connecting LSI 9240-4i to the 25-drives bay?
-- Pasi
>> [...]
>> The results were the same with 10 or 25 drives, so I suspected either the
>> PCI bus, either the expander in the 25-drives bay (HP 530946-001).
>> Plugging the disks directly to the LSI card allowed to gain few MB/s :
>> the expander was limiting a bit, but moreover, it disallowed to u
On 11/27/12 1:52 AM, "Grégory Giannoni" wrote:
>
>Le 27 nov. 2012 à 01:17, Erik Trimble a écrit :
>
>> On 11/26/2012 12:54 PM, Grégory Giannoni wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> I switched few month ago from Sun X45x0 to HP things : My fast NAS are
>>>now DL 180 G6. I got better perfs using LSI 9240-8I rath
Le 27 nov. 2012 à 01:17, Erik Trimble a écrit :
> On 11/26/2012 12:54 PM, Grégory Giannoni wrote:
>> [snip]
>> I switched few month ago from Sun X45x0 to HP things : My fast NAS are now
>> DL 180 G6. I got better perfs using LSI 9240-8I rather than HP SmartArray
>> (tried P410 & P812). I'm usin
On 11/26/2012 12:54 PM, Grégory Giannoni wrote:
[snip]
I switched few month ago from Sun X45x0 to HP things : My fast NAS are now DL 180
G6. I got better perfs using LSI 9240-8I rather than HP SmartArray (tried P410
& P812). I'm using only 600Gb SSD drives.
That LSI controllers supports SATA II
Le 24 nov. 2012 à 03:51, Erik Trimble a écrit :
>> This is what we decided to do at work, and this is the reason why.
>> But we didn't buy the appliance-branded boxes; we just bought normal servers
>> running solaris.
>>
>
> I gave up and am now buying HP-branded hardware for running Solaris on
> I am in the market for something newer than that, though. Anyone know
> what HP's using as a replacement for the DL320s?
I have no idea... but they have dl380 Gen8 with a disk plane supporting 25x
2.5" disks (all in front), and it is Sandy Bridge based.
Oracle/Sun have X3-2L - 24x 2.5" disks
On 11/24/12 5:51 PM, "Erik Trimble" wrote:
>On 11/24/2012 5:17 AM, Edmund White wrote:
>> Heh, I wouldn't be using G5's for ZFS purposes now. G6 and better
>> ProLiants are a better deal for RAM capacity and CPU core countŠ
>>
>> Either way, I also use HP systems as the basis for my ZFS/Nexenta
On 11/24/2012 5:17 AM, Edmund White wrote:
Heh, I wouldn't be using G5's for ZFS purposes now. G6 and better
ProLiants are a better deal for RAM capacity and CPU core countŠ
Either way, I also use HP systems as the basis for my ZFS/Nexenta storage
systems. Typically DL380's, since I have expansi
Heh, I wouldn't be using G5's for ZFS purposes now. G6 and better
ProLiants are a better deal for RAM capacity and CPU core countŠ
Either way, I also use HP systems as the basis for my ZFS/Nexenta storage
systems. Typically DL380's, since I have expansion room for either 16
drive bays, or for usin
On 11/23/2012 5:50 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
(opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
I wonder if it would make weird sense to get the boxes, forfeit the
cool-looking Fishworks, an
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>
> I wonder if it would make weird sense to get the boxes, forfeit the
> cool-looking Fishworks, and install Solaris/OI/Nexenta/whatever to
> get the most flexibility and bang for
>So, the only supported (or even possible) way is indeed to us it
>as NAS for file or block IO from another head running the database
>or application servers?..
Technically speaking you can get access to standard shell and do whatever
you want - this would essentially void support contract though
On 11/23/12 05:50, Jim Klimov wrote:
On 2012-11-22 17:31, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Is it possible to use the ZFS Storage appliances in a similar
way, and fire up a Solaris zone (or a few) directly on the box
for general-purpose software; or to shell-script administrative
tasks such as the backup a
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2012-11-22 17:31, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to use the ZFS Storage appliances in a similar
>>> way, and fire up a Solaris zone (or a few) directly on the box
>>> for general-purpose software; or to shell-script administrati
On 2012-11-22 17:31, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Is it possible to use the ZFS Storage appliances in a similar
way, and fire up a Solaris zone (or a few) directly on the box
for general-purpose software; or to shell-script administrative
tasks such as the backup archive management in the global zone
(
On 11/22/12 16:24, Jim Klimov wrote:
A customer is looking to replace or augment their Sun Thumper
with a ZFS appliance like 7320. However, the Thumper was used
not only as a protocol storage server (home dirs, files, backups
over NFS/CIFS/Rsync), but also as a general-purpose server with
unpre
A customer is looking to replace or augment their Sun Thumper
with a ZFS appliance like 7320. However, the Thumper was used
not only as a protocol storage server (home dirs, files, backups
over NFS/CIFS/Rsync), but also as a general-purpose server with
unpredictably-big-data programs running direc
20 matches
Mail list logo
