--On 24 May 2010 23:41 -0400 rwali...@washdcmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen where anyone has tested this, but the MemoRight SSD (sold
by RocketDisk in the US) seems to claim all the right things:
http://www.rocketdisk.com/vProduct.aspx?ID=1
pdf specs:
http://www.rocketdisk.com/Local/Files/Pr
--On 25 May 2010 15:28 +0300 Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
I've tried contacting Intel to find out if it's true their "enterprise"
SSD has no cache protection on it, and what the effect of turning the
write cache off would have on both performance and write endurance, but
not heard anything back yet.
--On 25 May 2010 11:15 -0700 Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Karl Pielorz
wrote:
I've tried contacting Intel to find out if it's true their "enterprise"
SSD has no cache protection on it, and what the effect of turning the
write
The "
Hi All,
I've been using ZFS for a while now - and everything's been going well. I
use it under FreeBSD - but this question almost certainly should be the
same answer, whether it's FreeBSD or Solaris (I think/hope :)...
Imagine if I have a zpool with 2 disks in it, that are mirrored:
"
NAME
--On 04 February 2010 11:31 + Karl Pielorz
wrote:
What would happen when I tried to 'online' ad2 again?
A reply to my own post... I tried this out, when you make 'ad2' online
again, ZFS immediately logs a 'vdev corrupt' failure, and marks 'ad2&#
--On 04 February 2010 08:58 -0500 Jacob Ritorto
wrote:
Seems your controller is actually doing only harm here, or am I missing
something?
The RAID controller presents the drives as both a mirrored pair, and JBOD -
*at the same time*...
The machine boots off the partition on the 'mirrore
--On 23 August 2008 17:01 -0700 hunter morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ok so i have 3 500gb hard drives in my freebsd fileserver. they are set
> up in a pool as a raidz1 of 3 and another raidz1 of 2. like this:
I'm guessing that's a typo - and you mean '5' hard drives, not 3 ;)
> pool0
--On 05 September 2008 07:37 -0700 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Also, /dev/ad10 is something I don't recognize... what is it?
> -- richard
'/dev/ad10' is a FreeBSD disk device, which would kind of be fitting, as:
LyeBeng Ong wrote:
> I made a bad judgment and now my raidz pool
Hi All,
I run ZFS (a version 6 pool) under FreeBSD. Whilst I realise this changes a
*whole heap* of things - I'm more interested in if I did 'anything wrong'
when I had a recent drive failure...
On of a mirrored pair of drives on the system started failing, badly
(confirmed by 'hard' read & w
--On 08 September 2008 07:30 -0700 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This seems like a reasonable process to follow, I would have done
> much the same.
> [caveat: I've not examined the FreeBSD ZFS port, the following
> presumes the FreeBSD port is similar to the Solaris port]
> ZFS d
--On 06 January 2009 16:37 -0800 Carson Gaspar wrote:
> On 1/6/2009 4:19 PM, Sam wrote:
>> I was hoping that this was the problem (because just buying more
>> discs is the cheapest solution given time=$$) but running it by
>> somebody at work they said going over 90% can cause decreased
>> perf
Hi All,
I'm a new ZFS convert (so far, I've only been impressed by ZFS) - I'm
running it under FreeBSD 7 atm.
I've got to 'shuffle' all the underlying devices around on my raidz pool -
so their device names will all either change (e.g. "da0" will become "ad4")
- or the devices will get 'jumbl
--On 07 December 2007 11:18 -0600 Jason Morton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using ZFS on FreeBSD 7.0_beta3. This is the first time i have used
> ZFS and I have run into something that I am not sure if this is normal,
> but am very concerned about.
>
> SYSTEM INFO:
> hp 320s (storage array)
Hi,
I've seen/read a number of articles on the net, about RAIDZ - and things
like Dynamic Striping et'al. I know roughly how this works - but I can't
seem to get to the bottom of expanding existing pool space, if this is even
possible.
e.g. If I build a RAIDZ pool with 5 * 400Gb drives, and l
14 matches
Mail list logo
