Heya Kent,
Kent Watsen wrote:
>> It sounds good, that way, but (in theory), you'll see random I/O
>> suffer a bit when using RAID-Z2: the extra parity will drag
>> performance down a bit.
> I know what you are saying, but I , wonder if it would be noticeable? I
Well, "noticeable" again comes
Hello,
today we made some tests with failed drives on a zpool.
(SNV60, 2xHBA, 4xJBOD connected through 2 Brocade 2800)
On the log we found hundred of the following errors:
Sep 16 12:04:23 svrt12 fp: [ID 517869 kern.info] NOTICE: fp(0): PLOGI to 11dca
failed state=Timeout, reason=Hardware Error
Se
Gino,
although these messages show some similarity to ones in the Sun Alert
you are referring to, it looks like this is unrelated. Sun Alert 57773
describes symptoms of a problem seen in SAN configurations with specific
switches (Brocade SilkWorm Switch 12000, 24000, 3250, 3850, 3900) with
spe
> - can have 6 (2+2) w/ 0 spares providing 6000 GB with MTTDL of
> 28911.68 years
This should, of course, set off one's common-sense alert.
> it is 91 times more likely to fail and this system will contain data
> that I don't want to risk losing
If you don't want to risk losing data, you ne
> One option I'm still holding on to is to also use the ZFS system as a
> Xen-server - that is OpenSolaris would be running in Dom0... Given
> that
> the Xen hypervisor has a pretty small cpu/memory footprint, do you
> think
> it could share 2-cores + 4Gb with ZFS or should I allocate 3 cores
David Edmondson wrote:
>> One option I'm still holding on to is to also use the ZFS system as a
>> Xen-server - that is OpenSolaris would be running in Dom0... Given that
>> the Xen hypervisor has a pretty small cpu/memory footprint, do you think
>> it could share 2-cores + 4Gb with ZFS or should
>> I know what you are saying, but I , wonder if it would be noticeable? I
>
> Well, "noticeable" again comes back to your workflow. As you point out
> to Richard, it's (theoretically) 2x IOPS difference, which can be very
> significant for some people.
Yeah, but my point is if it would be not
>> - can have 6 (2+2) w/ 0 spares providing 6000 GB with MTTDL of
>> 28911.68 years
>>
>
> This should, of course, set off one's common-sense alert.
>
So true, I pointed the same thing out in this list a while back [sorry,
can't find the link] where it was beyond my lifetime and folks
Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> Glad you brought that up - I currently have an APC 2200XL
> (http://www.apcc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=SU2200XLNET)
>
> - its rated for 1600 watts, but my current case selections are saying
> they have a 1500W 3+1, should I be worried?
>
>
Probab
It is weird. Did you run label subcommand after modifying the partition
table? Did you try unset NOINUSE_CHECK before running format?
Larry
Bill Casale wrote:
> Sun Fire 280R
>
> Solaris 10 11/06, KU Generic_125100-08
>
> Created a ZFS pool with disk c5t0d5, format c5t0d5 shows the disk is
> p
10 matches
Mail list logo
