Well, here's my previous summary off list to different solaris folk
(regarding NFS serving via ZFS and iSCSI):
I want to use ZFS as a NAS with no bounds on the backing hardware (not
restricted to one boxes capacity). Thus, there are two options: FC SAN
or iSCSI. In my case, I have multi-building c
Well, here's my previous summary off list to different solaris folk
(regarding NFS serving via ZFS and iSCSI):
I want to use ZFS as a NAS with no bounds on the backing hardware (not
restricted to one boxes capacity). Thus, there are two options: FC SAN
or iSCSI. In my case, I have multi-building
Hello Joe,
Wednesday, May 31, 2006, 12:44:22 AM, you wrote:
JL> Well, I would caution at this point against the iscsi backend if you
JL> are planning on using NFS. We took a long winded conversation online
JL> and have yet to return to this list, but the gist of it is that the
JL> latency of iscs
Well, I would caution at this point against the iscsi backend if you
are planning on using NFS. We took a long winded conversation online
and have yet to return to this list, but the gist of it is that the
latency of iscsi along with the tendency for NFS to fsync 3 times per
write causes performan
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:55:09AM -0700, Ernst Rohlicek jun. wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I've read about your fascinating new fs implementation, ZFS. I've seen
> alot - nbd, lvm, evms, pvfs2, gfs, ocfs - and I have to say: I'm quite
> impressed!
>
> I'd set up a few of my boxes to OpenSolaris for s
Hello list,
I've read about your fascinating new fs implementation, ZFS. I've seen alot -
nbd, lvm, evms, pvfs2, gfs, ocfs - and I have to say: I'm quite impressed!
I'd set up a few of my boxes to OpenSolaris for storage (using Linux and lvm
right now - offers pooling, but no built-in fault-tol
