Thanks for all the replies :)
My mindset is split in two now...
Some detail - I'm using 4 1-to-5 Sata Port multipliers connected to a 4-port
SATA raid card.
I only need reliability and size, as long as my performance is the equivalent
of one drive, Im happy.
Im assuming all the data used in t
Did you run installgrub before rebooting?
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote:
Hi,
After upgrade from snv_138 to snv_142 or snv_145 I'm unable to boot the system.
Here is what I get.
Any idea why it's not able to import rpool?
I saw this issue also on older builds on a different mac
On 07.09.10 17:26, Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote:
Hi,
After upgrade from snv_138 to snv_142 or snv_145 I'm unable to boot the system.
Here is what I get.
Any idea why it's not able to import rpool?
Provided output tells that it was able to read device labels, construct
configuration and add it int
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of hatish
>
> I have just
> read the Best Practices guide, and it says your group shouldnt have > 9
> disks.
I think the value you can take from this is:
Why does the BPG say that? What is the
may be 5x(3+1) use one disk from each controller, 15TB usable space,
3+1 raidz rebuild time should be reasonable
On 9/7/2010 4:40 AM, hatish wrote:
Thanks for all the replies :)
My mindset is split in two now...
Some detail - I'm using 4 1-to-5 Sata Port multipliers connected to a 4-port
S
I have seen conflicting examples on how to create zpools using full disks. The
zpool(1M) page uses "c0t0d0" but OpenSolaris Bible and others show "c0t0d0p0".
E.g.:
zpool create tank raidz c0t0d0 c0t1d0 c0t2d0 c0t3d0 c0t4d0 c0t5d0
zpool create tank raidz c0t0d0p0 c0t1d0p0 c0t2d0p0 c0t3d0p0 c0t4
Hi Craig,
D'oh. I kept wondering where those p0 examples were coming from.
Don't use the p* devices for your storage pools. They represent
the larger fdisk partition.
Use the d* devices instead, like this example below:
zpool create tank raidz c0t0d0 c0t1d0 c0t2d0 c0t3d0 c0t4d0 c0t5d0
Thanks,
I am working on a home file server. After reading a wide range of blogs and
forums, I have a few questions that are still not clear to me
1. Is there a benefit in having quad core CPU (e.g. Athlon II X4 vs X2)? All
of the web blogs seem to suggest using lower-wattage dual core CPUs. But;
Craig,
I'm sure the other home file server users will comment on your gear
and any possible benefit of a L2ARC or separate log device...
Use the default checksum which is fletcher4, I fixed the tuning guide
reference, skip dedup for now. Keep things as simple as possible.
Thanks,
Cindy
On 0
On 09/07/2010 03:58 PM, Craig Stevenson wrote:
I am working on a home file server. After reading a wide range of blogs and
forums, I have a few questions that are still not clear to me
1. Is there a benefit in having quad core CPU (e.g. Athlon II X4 vs X2)? All
of the web blogs seem to s
On Tue, Sep 7 at 17:13, Russ Price wrote:
On 09/07/2010 03:58 PM, Craig Stevenson wrote:
I am working on a home file server. After reading a wide range of
blogs and forums, I have a few questions that are still not clear
to me
1. Is there a benefit in having quad core CPU (e.g. Athlon II
Craig,
3. I do not think you will get much dedupe on video, music and photos. I would
not bother. If you really wanted to know at some later stage, you could create
a new file system, enable dedupe, and copy your data (or a subset) into it just
to see. In my experience there is a significant CP
check fler.us
Solaris 10 iSCSI Target for Vmware ESX
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 09/07/2010 05:58 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
How are you measuring using 60% across all four cores?
I kicked off a scrub just to see, and we're scrubbing at 200MB/s (2
vdevs) and the CPU is 94% idle, 6% kernel, 0% IOWAIT.
zpool-tank is using 3.2% CPU as shown by 'ps aux | grep tank'
Whoops..
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote:
>
> I think the value you can take from this is:
> Why does the BPG say that? What is the reasoning behind it?
>
> Anything that is a "rule of thumb" either has reasoning behind it (you
> should know the reasoning) or it doesn't (you s
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 06:59, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think the value you can take from this is:
>> Why does the BPG say that? What is the reasoning behind it?
>>
>> Anything that is a "rule of thumb" either has reasoning be
16 matches
Mail list logo
