On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 01:57:59PM +0100, Paul Boven wrote:
> config:
>
> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
> data DEGRADED 0 0 0
> raidz2 DEGRADED 0 0 0
> c4t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c4t1
Hi everyone,
I've had some time to upgrade the machine in question to nv-b77 and run
the same tests. And I'm happy to report that now, hotspares work a lot
better. The only question remaining for us: how long for these changes
to be integrated into a supported Solaris release?
See below for some
Hi Dan,
Dan Pritts wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:10:32AM +0100, Paul Boven wrote:
>> Any suggestions on how to further investigate / fix this would be very
>> much welcomed. I'm trying to determine whether this is a zfs bug or one
>> with the Transtec raidbox, and whether to file a bug with
Hi MP,
MP wrote:
>> but my issue is that
>> not only the 'time left', but also the progress
>> indicator itself varies
>> wildly, and keeps resetting itself to 0%, not giving
>> any indication that
>
> Are you sure you are not being hit by this bug:
>
> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/vi
> but my issue is that
> not only the 'time left', but also the progress
> indicator itself varies
> wildly, and keeps resetting itself to 0%, not giving
> any indication that
Are you sure you are not being hit by this bug:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6343667
i.e.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:10:32AM +0100, Paul Boven wrote:
> Any suggestions on how to further investigate / fix this would be very
> much welcomed. I'm trying to determine whether this is a zfs bug or one
> with the Transtec raidbox, and whether to file a bug with either
> Transtec (Promise) or z
Hi Tom, everyone,
Tom Mooney wrote:
> A little extra info:
> ZFS brings in a ZFS spare device the next time the pool is accessed, not
> a raidbox hot spare. Resilvering starts automatically and increases disk
> access times by about 30%. The first hour of estimated time left ( for
> 5-6 TB pools )
A little extra info:
ZFS brings in a ZFS spare device the next time the pool is accessed, not
a raidbox hot spare. Resilvering starts automatically and increases disk
access times by about 30%. The first hour of estimated time left ( for
5-6 TB pools ) is wildly inaccurate, but it starts to set
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:31:00AM +0100, Paul Boven wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. The SCSI-card in the X4200 is a Sun Single
> Channel U320 card that came with the system, but the PCB artwork does
> sport a nice 'LSI LOGIC' imprint.
That is probably the same card i'm using; it's actually a "Sun
Hi Dan,
Dan Pritts wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:25:24PM +0100, Paul Boven wrote:
>> We've building a storage system that should have about 2TB of storage
>> and good sequential write speed. The server side is a Sun X4200 running
>> Solaris 10u4 (plus yesterday's recommended patch cluster),
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:25:24PM +0100, Paul Boven wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We've building a storage system that should have about 2TB of storage
> and good sequential write speed. The server side is a Sun X4200 running
> Solaris 10u4 (plus yesterday's recommended patch cluster), the array we
>
Paul Boven wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We've building a storage system that should have about 2TB of storage
> and good sequential write speed. The server side is a Sun X4200 running
> Solaris 10u4 (plus yesterday's recommended patch cluster), the array we
> bought is a Transtec Provigo 510 12-disk
Hi everyone,
We've building a storage system that should have about 2TB of storage
and good sequential write speed. The server side is a Sun X4200 running
Solaris 10u4 (plus yesterday's recommended patch cluster), the array we
bought is a Transtec Provigo 510 12-disk array. The disks are SATA, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
