Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 23, 2007 8:53:30 AM +1100 "James C. McPherson"
...
Why would you start your numbering at 10?
Because you don't have a choice. It is up to the HBA and getting it
to do the right thing (ie, what you want) isn't always easy. IIRC,
the LSI Logic HBA(s) I had would
On January 23, 2007 8:53:30 AM +1100 "James C. McPherson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Frank,
Frank Cusack wrote:
Would you please expand upon this, because I'm really interested
in what your thoughts are. since I work on Sun's SAS driver :)
SAS is limited, by the Solaris driver, to 16 d
Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 19, 2007 10:01:43 PM -0800 Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scouting around a bit, I see SIIG has a 3132 chip, for which they make a
card, eSATA II, available in PCIe and PCIe ExpressCard formfactors. I
can't promise, but chances seem good that it's supported b
Hi Frank,
Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 20, 2007 6:08:07 PM -0800 Richard Elling
Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 19, 2007 5:59:13 PM -0800 "David J. Orman"
card that supports SAS would be *ideal*,
Except that SAS support on Solaris is not very good.
One major problem is they treat it like s
On January 19, 2007 10:01:43 PM -0800 Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scouting around a bit, I see SIIG has a 3132 chip, for which they make a
card, eSATA II, available in PCIe and PCIe ExpressCard formfactors. I
can't promise, but chances seem good that it's supported by si3124 driver
in So
On January 20, 2007 6:08:07 PM -0800 Richard Elling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 19, 2007 5:59:13 PM -0800 "David J. Orman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
card that supports SAS would be *ideal*,
Except that SAS support on Solaris is not very good.
One major problem
On January 22, 2007 8:15:46 AM -0800 Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On January 21, 2007 7:38:01 AM -0600 Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, James C. McPherson wrote:
... snip
Would you please expand upon this, because I'm really interested
in what your thou
On January 21, 2007 7:38:01 AM -0600 Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, James C. McPherson wrote:
... snip
Would you please expand upon this, because I'm really interested
in what your thoughts are. since I work on Sun's SAS driver :)
Hi James - just the man I
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, James C. McPherson wrote:
... snip
Would you please expand upon this, because I'm really interested
in what your thoughts are. since I work on Sun's SAS driver :)
Hi James - just the man I have a couple of questions for... :)
Will the LsiLogic 3041
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, James C. McPherson wrote:
... snip
> Would you please expand upon this, because I'm really interested
> in what your thoughts are. since I work on Sun's SAS driver :)
Hi James - just the man I have a couple of questions for... :)
Will the LsiLogic 3041E-R (4-port in
>What I gather from this is that today, SATA drives will either look like IDE
>drives or SCSI drives, to some extent. When they look like IDE drives, you
>don't get all of the cfgadm or luxadm management options and you have to do
>thinks like hot plug in a more-rather-than-less manual mode. When
Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 19, 2007 5:59:13 PM -0800 "David J. Orman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
card that supports SAS would be *ideal*,
Except that SAS support on Solaris is not very good.
One major problem is they treat it like scsi when instead they should
treat it like FC (or native S
Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 19, 2007 5:59:13 PM -0800 "David J. Orman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
card that supports SAS would be *ideal*,
Except that SAS support on Solaris is not very good.
One major problem is they treat it like scsi when instead they should
treat it like FC (or native
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Erik Trimble wrote:
> The Sun 3120 does 4 x 3.5" SCSI drives in a 1U, and the Sun 3320 does 12 x
> 3.5" in 2U. Both come in JBOD configs (and the 3320 has HW Raid if you want
> it).
Yep; I know about those products. But the entry level 3120 (with
2 x 73GB disks) has a list p
Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Frank Cusack wrote:
But x4100/x4200 only accept expensive 2.5" SAS drives, which have
small capacities. [...]
... and only 2 or 4 drives each. Hence my blog entry a while back,
wishing for a Sun-badged 1U SAS JBOD with room for 8 drives. I'm
am
Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 19, 2007 6:47:30 PM -0800 Erik Trimble
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not to be picky, but the X2100 and X2200 series are NOT
designed/targeted for disk serving (they don't even have redundant power
supplies). They're compute-boxes. The X4100/X4200 are what you are
l
Hi Shannon,
The markup is still pretty high on a per-drive basis. That being said,
$1-2/GB is darn low for the capacity in a server. Plus, you're also
paying for having enough HyperTransport I/O to feed the PCI-E I/O.
Does anyone know what problems they had with the 250GB version of the
Thumper
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Frank Cusack wrote:
> But x4100/x4200 only accept expensive 2.5" SAS drives, which have
> small capacities. [...]
... and only 2 or 4 drives each. Hence my blog entry a while back,
wishing for a Sun-badged 1U SAS JBOD with room for 8 drives. I'm
amazed that Sun hasn't got
Shannon Roddy wrote:
For sun to charge 4-8 times street price for hard drives that
they order just the same as I do from the same manufacturers that I
order from is infuriating.
Are you sure they're really the same drives? Mechanically, they
probably are, but last I knew (I don't work in the
Frank Cusack wrote:
>
> It is ashame (for the consumer) that it's not available without drives.
> Sun has always had an obscene markup on drives.
>
> -frank
To me, hard drives today are as much a commodity item as network cable,
GBICs, NICs, DVD drives, etc. Sun should not be marking them up at
On January 20, 2007 2:16:45 AM -0600 Shannon Roddy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
thumper (x4500) seems pretty reasonable ($/GB).
-frank
I am always amazed that people consider thumper to be reasonable in
price. 450% or more markup per drive from street price in July 2006
n
Frank Cusack wrote:
>
> thumper (x4500) seems pretty reasonable ($/GB).
>
> -frank
I am always amazed that people consider thumper to be reasonable in
price. 450% or more markup per drive from street price in July 2006
numbers doesn't seem reasonable to me, even after subtracting the cost
of the
On January 19, 2007 6:47:30 PM -0800 Erik Trimble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Not to be picky, but the X2100 and X2200 series are NOT
designed/targeted for disk serving (they don't even have redundant power
supplies). They're compute-boxes. The X4100/X4200 are what you are
looking for to get a f
On January 19, 2007 5:59:13 PM -0800 "David J. Orman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
card that supports SAS would be *ideal*,
Except that SAS support on Solaris is not very good.
One major problem is they treat it like scsi when instead they should
treat it like FC (or native SATA).
So, anybody
David J. Orman wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at Sun's 1U x64 server line, and at most they support two drives.
This is fine for the root OS install, but obviously not sufficient for many
users.
Specifically, I am looking at the: http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x2200/
X2200M2.
It only has "Riser car
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 17:59 -0800, David J. Orman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at Sun's 1U x64 server line, and at most they support two drives.
> This is fine for the root OS install, but obviously not sufficient for many
> users.
>
> Specifically, I am looking at the: http://www.sun.com/serve
Hi David,
I don't know if your company qualifies as a startup under Sun's regs
but you can get an X4500/Thumper for $24,000 under this program:
http://www.sun.com/emrkt/startupessentials/
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/19/07, David J. Orman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at Sun's 1U x64
27 matches
Mail list logo
