On 9/6/07, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, you may be able to lower the sound ever so slightly more by
> staggering the drives so that every other one is upside down, spinning the
> opposite direction and thus minimizing accumulative rotational vibration.
Be careful her
On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quite; it seems to all be done with blogs.
>
> After Netapp's blog, we now see Sun's CEO enter into the fray:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/on_patent_trolling
And now NetApp's response:
http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/litigoper
I've seen the page with the pics of that server, and I agree with this issue.
So I'd like to try to reverse half of the disks too, how would you advice to do
this?
My current setup is as follows, where up is normal disk upside paced, and down
is with upside plate down and electronics side up:
up
A sysadmin friend of mine at Oxford just posted the attached in his
LiveJournal; I am forwarding it here for comments, since it swings
between problem definition and rant, and today's Friday.
I have my opinions regarding some of the points raised; I am seeking
breadth of insight. At very lea
Alec Muffett wrote:
>> But
>> finally, and this is the critical problem, each user's home
>> directory is now a separate NFS share.
>>
>> At first look that final point doesn't seem to be much of a worry
>> until you look at the implications that brings. To cope with a
>> distributed syste
On 9/7/07, Alec Muffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The main bugbear is what the ZFS development team laughably call
> > quotas. They aren't quotas, they are merely filesystem size
> > restraints. To get around this the developers use the "let them eat
> > cake" mantra, "creating filesystems is
The complaint is not new, and the problem isn't quotas or lack thereof.
The problem is that remote filesystem clients can't cope with frequent
changes to a server's share list, which is just ZFS's "filesystems are
cheap" approach promotes.
Basically ZFS was ahead of everyone's implementation of N
On 9/7/07, Mike Gerdts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For me, quotas are likely to be a pain point that prevents me from
> making good use of snapshots. Getting changes in application teams'
> understanding and behavior is just too much trouble. Others are:
not to mention there are smaller-scale u
Mike Gerdts wrote:
> It appears as though the author has not yet tried out snapshots. The
> fact that space used by a snapshot for the sysadmin's convenience
> counts against the user's quota is the real killer.
Very soon there will be another way to specify quotas (and
reservations) such that t
>http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html
Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night discussing some
of the prior art, going back to some of the "disks could do this too"
discussions by early tree structured binary data structures inventions,
mentioning other copy-on-wri
Mike Gerdts wrote:
> Having worked in academia and multiple Fortune 100's, the problem
> seems to be most prevalent in academia, although possibly a minor
> inconvenience in some engineering departments in industry. In the
> .edu where I used to manage the UNIX environment, I would have a tough
>
I've just subscribed to this list after Alec's posting and reading the
comments in the archive and I have a couple of comments:
Mike Gerdts:
While NFS4 holds some promise here, it is not a solution today. It
won't be until all OS's that came out before 2008 are gone. That will
be a while.
Wel
You should probably be doing a ZFS clone and backing that up.
> I am messing around with zfs snapshots, and was wondering if it is
> possible to mount a zfs snapshot. I would like to use this snapshot
to
> backup to tape.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and inte
Yes, if you have any MFM/RLL drives in your possession, please disregard my
recomendation ;)
-=dave
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Kraus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] New zfs pr0n server :)))
> On 9/6/07, Dave Johnson <
the up/down/up/down/... scenario should give the best results in minimizing
accumulative rotation vibration.
-=dave
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dave Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Christopher Gibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:35 A
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:25:38PM +0100, Stephen Usher wrote:
> Nicolas Williams:
>
> Unfortunately for us at the coal face it's very rare that we can do the
> ideal thing. Quotas are part of the problem but the main problem is that
> there is currently no way over overcoming the interoperabili
On 9/7/07, Stephen Usher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brian H. Nelson:
>
> I'm sure it would be interesting for those on the list if you could
> outline the gotchas so that the rest of us don't have to re-invent the
> wheel... or at least not fall down the pitfalls.
The UFS on zvols option sound
Agreed on the quota issue.
When you have 50K users, having a filesystem per user becomes unwieldy and
effectively unusable.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 06:19:34PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
>
> backups and restores. Snapshots of the zvols could be mounted as
> other UFS file systems that could allow for self-service restores.
> Perhaps this would make it so that you can write data to tape a bit
> less frequently.
This wou
George William Herbert wrote:
>> http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html
>
> Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night discussing some
> of the prior art, going back to some of the "disks could do this too"
> discussions by early tree structured binary data structures i
This changed subject long ago...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>That "but it existed only in RAM in my servers" should not be a defense
>>for failing to retain discoverable evidence is distinct from the issue
>>of what constitutes discoverable evidence.
>>
>>
>
>But only if you were told yo
I am curious why zpool status reports a pool to be in the DEGRADED state
after a drive in a raidz2 vdev has been successfully replaced. In this
particular case drive c0t6d0 was failing so I ran,
zpool offline home/c0t6d0
zpool replace home c0t6d0 c8t1d0
and after the resilvering finished the pool
> Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night
> discussing some
> of the prior art, going back to some of the "disks
> could do this too"
> discussions by early tree structured binary data
> structures inventions,
> mentioning other copy-on-write structure ideas
> floating around in the
> l
23 matches
Mail list logo
