Ok, had a bit of a look around,
What about this setup.
Two boxes with all the hard drives in them. And all drives iSCSI Targets. A
third Box puts all of the Drives into a mirrored RAIDz setup (one box mirroring
the other, each has a RAIDz zfs zpool). This setup wil be shared via samba out.
Doe
Dnia 23-08-2007 o godz. 22:15 Igor Brezac napisał(a):
> We are on Solaris 10 U3 with relatively recent recommended patches
> applied. zfs destroy of a filesystem takes a very long time; 20GB usage
> and about 5 million objects takes about 10 minutes to destroy. zfs pool
> is a 2 drive stripe, not
Mark wrote:
> Ok, had a bit of a look around,
>
> What about this setup.
>
> Two boxes with all the hard drives in them. And all drives iSCSI Targets. A
> third Box puts all of the Drives into a mirrored RAIDz setup (one box
> mirroring the other, each has a RAIDz zfs zpool). This setup wil be
Hi Lukasz and all,
I just returned from month long sick-leave, so I need some time to sort
pile of emails, do SPARC build and some testing and then I'll be able to
provide you with my changes in some form. Hope this will happen next week.
Cheers,
Victor
Łukasz K wrote:
> Dnia 26-07-2007 o godz
Great, I have latest snv_70 sources and I'm working on it.
Lukas
Dnia 24-08-2007 o godz. 14:57 Victor Latushkin napisał(a):
> Hi Lukasz and all,
>
> I just returned from month long sick-leave, so I need some time to sort
> pile of emails, do SPARC build and some testing and then I'll be able to
Is it a supported configuration to have a single LUN presented to 4 different
Sun servers over a fiber channel network and then mounting that LUN on each
host as the same ZFS filesystem?
We need any of the 4 servers to be able to write data to this shared FC disk.
We are not using NFS as we do
> Is it a supported configuration to have a single LUN presented to 4
> different Sun servers over a fiber channel network and then mounting
> that LUN on each host as the same ZFS filesystem?
ZFS today does not support multi-host simultaneous mounts. There's no
arbitration for the pool metadata,
On Friday, August 24, 2007 at 20:14:05 CEST, Matt B wrote:
Hi,
> Is it a supported configuration to have a single LUN presented to 4 different
> Sun servers over a fiber channel network and then mounting that LUN on each
> host as the same ZFS filesystem?
No. You can neither access ZFS nor UFS
That is what I was afraid of.
In regards to QFS and NFS, isnt QFS something that must be purchased? I looked
on the SUN website and it appears to be a little pricey.
NFS is free, but is there a way to use NFS without traversing the network? We
already have our SAN presenting this disk to each o
Cant use the network because these 4 hosts are database servers that will be
dumping close to a Terabyte every night. If we put that over the network all
the other servers would be starved
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mai
On Friday, August 24, 2007 at 20:41:04 CEST, Matt B wrote:
> That is what I was afraid of.
>
> In regards to QFS and NFS, isnt QFS something that must be purchased? I
> looked on the SUN website and it appears to be a little pricey.
>
> NFS is free, but is there a way to use NFS without traversi
On Friday, August 24, 2007 at 21:06:28 CEST, Matt B wrote:
> Cant use the network because these 4 hosts are database servers that will be
> dumping close to a Terabyte every night. If we put that over the network all
> the other servers would be starved
I'm afraid there aren't many other options
> That is what I was afraid of.
>
> In regards to QFS and NFS, isnt QFS something that must be purchased?
> I looked on the SUN website and it appears to be a little pricey.
That's correct. Earlier this year Sun declared an intent to opensource
QFS/SAMFS, but that doesn't help you install it tod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If power consumption and heat is a consideration, the newer Intel CPUs
> have an advantage in that Solaris supports native power management on
> those CPUs.
>
>
Are P35 chipset boards supported?
Ian
___
zfs-discuss mailing
hi,
Few questions, I seem to remember in WAN environments IPsec can have a
reasonably large performance impact, how large is this performance impact? and
is there soe way to mitigate it? The problem is we could be needing to use all
a gigbit links bandwidth (possibly more). is IPsec AH slightly
Ian Collins wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> If power consumption and heat is a consideration, the newer Intel CPUs
>> have an advantage in that Solaris supports native power management on
>> those CPUs.
>>
>>
>>
> Are P35 chipset boards supported?
>
The P35 "chipset" works fin
Ronald Kuehn wrote:
> On Friday, August 24, 2007 at 21:06:28 CEST, Matt B wrote:
>> Cant use the network because these 4 hosts are database servers
>> that will be dumping close to a Terabyte every night. If we put
>> that over the network all the other servers would be starved
>
> I'm afraid ther
17 matches
Mail list logo
