Re: [zfs-discuss] rethinking RaidZ and Record size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2010-01-07 Thread Richard Elling
On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:09 PM, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: 0n Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 11:00:49PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote: On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: 0n Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote: Rather, ZFS works very nicely with "hardware RAID" sys

Re: [zfs-discuss] rethinking RaidZ and Record size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2010-01-06 Thread Wilkinson, Alex
0n Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 11:00:49PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote: >On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: >> >>0n Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote: >> >>> Rather, ZFS works very nicely with "hardware RAID" systems or JBODs >>>

Re: [zfs-discuss] rethinking RaidZ and Record size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2010-01-06 Thread Richard Elling
On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: 0n Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote: Rather, ZFS works very nicely with "hardware RAID" systems or JBODs iSCSI, et.al. You can happily add the Im not sure how ZFS works very nicely with say for example an EM

Re: [zfs-discuss] rethinking RaidZ and Record size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2010-01-06 Thread Wilkinson, Alex
0n Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote: >Rather, ZFS works very nicely with "hardware RAID" systems or JBODs >iSCSI, et.al. You can happily add the Im not sure how ZFS works very nicely with say for example an EMC Cx310 array ? -Alex IMPORTANT: This ema