You'd have to go back and read my previous thread, I did about 6 weeks
of trying to find a solution using zfs, and quotas, with mind of
directly replacing the NetApps we have. It just can not be done. (yet)
The closest would be to use mirror mounts, but that would require
upgrading all 500 ser
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
> If we were to get two x4500s, with the idea of keeping one as a passive
> standby (serious hardware failure) are there any clever solutions in
> doing so?
>
> We can not use ZFS itself, but rather zpool volumes, with UFS on-top. I
Why can't you use ZFS filesystems and i
Jorgen Lundman wrote:
> If we were to get two x4500s, with the idea of keeping one as a passive
> standby (serious hardware failure) are there any clever solutions in
> doing so?
>
> We can not use ZFS itself, but rather zpool volumes, with UFS on-top. I
> assume there is no zpool send/recv (al
On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:13 AM, Jorgen Lundman wrote:
>
> If we were to get two x4500s, with the idea of keeping one as a
> passive
> standby (serious hardware failure) are there any clever solutions in
> doing so?
You should take a look at AVS, there are some ZFS and AVS demos online
http://op
ECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorgen Lundman
Sent: 31 Ocak 2008 Perşembe 13:13
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: [zfs-discuss] x4500 x2
If we were to get two x4500s, with the idea of keeping one as a passive
standby (se
If we were to get two x4500s, with the idea of keeping one as a passive
standby (serious hardware failure) are there any clever solutions in
doing so?
We can not use ZFS itself, but rather zpool volumes, with UFS on-top. I
assume there is no zpool send/recv (although, that would be pretty neat
