We have 50,000 users worth of mail spool on ZFS.
So we've been trusting it for production usage for THE most critical & visible
enterprise app.
Works fine. Our stores are ZFS RAID-10 built of LUNS from pairs of 3510FC.
Had an entire array go down once, the system kept going fine. Brought the
Once upon a time I ran a lab with a whole bunch of SGI workstations.
A company that barely exists now.
This ButterFS may be the Next Big Thing. But I recall one time how hot
everyone was for Reiser. Look how that turned out.
3 years is an entire production lifecycle for the systems in this da
I'm not sure why you want to separate out all these filesystems on a root disk
these days? The reason I recall needing to do it over a decade ago, was
because disks were so small and perhaps you couldn't FIT /opt onto the same
disk with /usr. So you needed to be able to say /usr is on this dis
>
> All,I'm currently working out
> details on an upgrade from UFS/SDS on DAS to ZFS on a
> SAN fabric. I'm interested in hearing how
> ZFS has behaved in more traditional SAN environments
> using gear that scales vertically like EMC
> Clarion/HDS AMS/3PAR etc. Do you experience
> issues with zp
> Why would the customer need to use raidz or zfs
> mirroring if the array
> is doing it for them? As someone else posted,
> metadata is already
> redundant by default and doesn't consume a ton of
> space.
Because arrays & drives can suffer silent errors in the data that are not found
unti
Just make SURE the other host is actually truly DEAD!
If for some reason it's simply wedged, or you have lost console access but the
hostA is still "live", then you can end up with 2 systems having access to same
ZFS pool.
I have done this in test, 2 hosts accessing same pool, and the result is
Does it seem feasible/reasonable to enable compression on ZFS root disks during
JumpStart?
Seems like it could buy some space & performance.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail
Did you enable it in the jumpstart profile somehow?
If you do it after install the OS files are not compressed.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listi
> No, the last arguments are not options.
> Unfortunately,
> the syntax doesn't provide a way to specify
> compression
> at the creation time. It should, though.
> Or perhaps
> compression should be the default.
Should I submit an RFE somewhere then?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Dunno about the text installer mentioned in other replies as I never use it.
JumpStart installs working fine though with ZFS root.
I am also in finish script pre-creating some additional filesystems etc.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
So after tinkering with lucreate and luactivate I now have several boot
environments but the active one is unfortunately not bootable.
How can I access the luactivate command from boot:net?
boot net:dhcp -s
mkdir /tmp/mnt
zpool import -R /tmp/mnt rpool
I poke around in /tmp/mnt but do not find
Thanks I have restated the question over there.
Just thought this a ZFS question since I am doing Sparc ZFS root mirrors.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/ma
Has anyone done a script to check for filesystem problems?
On our existing UFS infrastructure we have a cron job run metacheck.pl
periodically so we get email if an SVM setup has problems.
We can scratch something like this together but if someone else already has.
--
This message posted fr
Anyone tried Nevada with ZFS on small platforms?
I ordered one of these:
http://www.fit-pc.com/new/fit-pc-slim-specifications.html
Planning to stick in a 160-gig Samsung drive and use it for lightweight
household server. Probably some Samba usage, and a tiny bit of Apache &
RADIUS. I don't
> You know that you need a minimum of 2 disks to form a
> (mirrored) pool
> with ZFS? A pool with no redundancy is not a good
> idea!
According to the slides I have seen, a ZFS filesystem even on a single disk can
handle massive amounts of sector failure before it becomes unusable. I seem
to
I loaded OpenSolaris nv101 on it and the result was very disappointing.
Not merely a little pokey it was unacceptably slow and the casing got very
warm. I am guessing it was pushing CPU right to 100% all the time. Took hours
to load and when booting took minutes. Also didn't see an easy way t
Fit-PC Slim uses Geode LX800 which is 500 MHz CPU with 512 megs RAM.
> Well... it's easy to disable graphical login:
>
> svcadm disable cde-login
The problem is there's no option during install to say "no graphics" so during
firstboot it's going to try anyhow. At which point my console is hose
> Solaris 10 U6 and Solaris Express
> Community Edition can both be installed in text mode.
> Nexenta and Belenix will also run on this machine
> with 512MB. Nexenta will probably be what you want if
> you are saying you are running ubuntu on this
> box.
Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.
I *in
Ummm, could you name a specific patch number that would apply to a stock
install?
Or suggest a way to search?
I poked at the 10_PatchReport from Nov 1st which has a handful but none of
the ones I picked out were needed on a 10u6 OEM install. I kept seeing patches
that applied to software/hardwa
Never mind, I ran through the cluster_install for 10_Recommended and found
patch 126868-02 is new so I used that one.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailma
Just wondering if anyone knows of a patch released for 10u6?
I realize this is OT but want to test my new ability with ZFS root to do
lucreate, patch the alternate BE, and luactivate it.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss maili
I noticed this while patching to 137137-09 on a UFS Sparc today:
Patch 137137-09 has been successfully installed.
See /var/run/.patchSafeMode/root/var/sadm/patch/137137-09/log for details
Executing postpatch script...
Detected SVM root.
Installing bootblk on /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s0
Installing bootblk o
Reviving this thread.
We have a Solaris 10u4 system recently patched with 137137-09.
Unfortunately the patch was applied from multi-user mode, I wonder if this
may have been original posters problem as well? Anyhow we are now stuck
with an unbootable system as well.
I have submitted a case to Su
The SupportTech responding to case #66153822 so far
has only suggested "boot from cdrom and patchrm 137137-09"
which tells me I'm dealing with a level-1 binder monkey.
It's the idle node of a cluster holding 10K email accounts
so I'm proceeding cautiously. It is unfortunate the admin doing
the ori
>
> I don't want to steer you wrong under the
> circumstances,
> so I think we need more information.
>
> First, is the failure the same as in the earlier part
> of this
> thread. I.e., when you boot, do you get a failure
> like this?
>
> Warning: Fcode sequence resulted in a net stack depth
Followup to my own post.
Looks like my SVM setup was having problems prior to patch being applied.
If I boot net:dhcp -s and poke around on the disks, it looks like disk0 is
pre-patch state and disk1 is post-patch.
I can get a shell if I
boot disk1 -s
So I think I am in SVM hell here not specfic
Whether tis nobler.
Just wondering if (excepting the existing zones thread) there are any
compelling arguments to keep /var as it's own filesystem for your typical
Solaris server. Web servers and the like.
Or arguments against it.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
It just seems like in a typical ZFS root install the need for a separate /var
is difficult for me to justify now. By default there are no quotas or
reservations set on /var. Okay I set them.
I have a monitoring system able to tell me when "disks" are getting full. It
seems easier to say jus
Just put commands to create them in the finish script.
I create several and set options on them like so:
### Create ZFS additional filesystems
echo "setting up additional filesystems."
zfs create -o compression=on -o mountpoint=/ucd rpool/ucd
zfs create -o compression=on -o mountpoint=/local/d01
To answer original post, simple answer:
Almost all old RAID designs have holes in their logic where they are
insufficiently paranoid on the writes or read, and sometimes both. One example
is the infamous RAID-5 write hole.
Look at simple example of mirrored SVM versus ZFS in page 15&16 of thi
Seems a lot simpler to create a multi-way mirror.
Then symlink your /opt/BIND or whatever off to new place.
# zpool create opt-new mirror c3t40d0 c3t40d1 c3t40d2 c3t40d3
# zpool status
pool: opt-new
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
>
> Dear AdminI have a server with 6 HDD,in fresh
> installation i select two disks for mirroring and
> create rpool and installing solaris10,but i need
> further space than default rpool`s file systems for
> installing my application. (for example mysql).so i
> decide create another pool (named t
>Dear Admin
>u said:
>choose a 3-disk RAID-1 or a 4-disk RAID10
>set for tank over RAIDZ aWith a 3-disk mirror you'd have a disk left over
>to be hot spare for failure in either rpool or tank.
>why do u prefer raid1 with one spare rather than raidz?
>i heard raidz has better redundancy than raid 1
I happen to have some 3510, 3511 on SAN, and older 3310 direct-attach arrays
around here.
Also some newer 2540 arrays.
Our preferred setup for the past year or so, is 2 arrays available to the
server.
>From each array make 2 LUNS available. Take these LUNs on the server and
ZFS them as RAID-10
I dunno man, just tell you what works well for me with the hardware I have here.
If you can go out and buy all new equipment like 7000-series storage then you
don't need HW RAID.
If you don't need HA & clustering & all that jazz then just get a bunch of big
drives and ZFS RAID-10 them.
As a pr
JZ cease & desist all this junk e-mail. I am adding you to my spam filters.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
So I have read in the ZFS Wiki:
# The minimum size of a log device is the same as the minimum size of device
in pool, which is 64 Mbytes. The amount of in-play data that might be stored on
a log device is relatively small. Log blocks are freed when the log transaction
(system call) is committe
You were just lucky before and unlucky now.
I had a PC back in like Pentium-133 days go CRASH because I moved it too
roughly while the drive was spinning.
I moved many PC in my life with drive spinning no problems, but I don't COUNT
on it and avoid it if humanly possible. Don't people do it a
Thanks I think I get it now.
Do you think having log on a 15K RPM drive with the main pool composed of 10K
RPM drives will show worthwhile improvements? Or am I chasing a few percentage
points?
I don't have money for new hardware & SSD. Just recycling some old components
here are and there a
I ran testing of hardware RAID versus all software and didn't see any
differences that made either a clear winner. For production platforms you're
just as well off having JBODs.
This was with bonnie++ on a V240 running Solaris 10u3. A 3511 array fully
populated with 12 380-gig drives, single
As a novice, I undestand that if you don't have any redundancy between vdevs
this is going to be a problem. Perhaps you can add mirroring to your existing
pool and make it work that way?
A pool made up of mirror pairs:
{cyrus4:137} zpool status
pool: ms2
state: ONLINE
scrub: scrub complete
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
Where is ZFS with regards to the NVRAM cache present on arrays?
I have a pile of 3310 with 512 megs cache, and even some 3510FC with 1-gig
cache. It seems silly that it's going to waste. These are dual-controller
units so I have no worry about loss of cache information.
It looks like OpenSola
It seems like ZIL is a separate issue.
I have read that putting ZIL on a separate device helps, but what about the
cache?
OpenSolaris has some flag to disable it. Solaris 10u3/4 do not. I have
dual-controllers with NVRAM and battery backup, why can't I make use of it?
Would I be wasting my
>
>
> The SE also told me that Sun Cluster requires
> hardware raid, which
> conflicts with the general recommendation to feed ZFS
> raw disk. It seems
> such a configuration would either require configuring
> zdevs directly on the
> raid LUNs, losing ZFS self-healing and checksum
> correction fe
> We need high availability, so are looking at Sun
> Cluster. That seems to add
> an extra layer of complexity , but there's no
> way I'll get signoff on
> a solution without redundancy. It would appear that
> ZFS failover is
> supported with the latest version of Solaris/Sun
> Cluster? I was speak
I don't understand. How do you
"setup one LUN that has all of the NVRAM on the array dedicated to it"
I'm pretty familiar with 3510 and 3310. Forgive me for being a bit
thick here, but can you be more specific for the n00b?
Do you mean from firmware side or OS side? Or since the LUNs used
for
> Vincent Fox wrote:
>
> Is this what you're referring to?
> http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evi
> l_Tuning_Guide#Cache_Flushes
As I wrote several times in this thread, this kernel variable does not work in
Sol 10u3.
Probably not in u4 although I haven&
>
> Solaris Cluster 3.2 supports Solaris 10 8/07 (aka
> u4). Where did you hear that
> it didn't?
Took an Advanced Clustering class a few weeks before U4 came out. At that time
I think the instructor said U3 was the "supported" configuration and he wasn't
sure when U4 would be a verified and s
So I went ahead and loaded 10u4 on a pair of V210 units.
I am going to set this nocacheflush option and cross my fingers and see how it
goes.
I have my ZPool mirroring LUNs off 2 different arrays. I have
single-controllers in each 3310. My belief is it's OK for me to do this even
without dua
So what are the failure modes to worry about?
I'm not exactly sure what the implications of this nocache option for my
configuration.
Say from a recent example I have an overtemp and first one array shuts down,
then the other one.
I come in after A/C is returned, shutdown and repower everythin
So the problem in the zfs send/receive thing, is what if your network glitches
out during the transfers?
We have these once a day due to some as-yet-undiagnosed switch problem, a
chop-out of 50 seconds or so which is enough to trip all our IPMP setups and
enough to abort SSH transfers in progre
To my mind ZFS has a serious deficiency for JBOD usage in a high-availability
clustered environment.
Namely, inability to tie spare drives to a particular storage group.
Example in clustering HA setups you would would want 2 SAS JBOD units and
mirror between them. In this way if a chassis goes
We had a Sun Engineer on-site recently who said this:
We should set our array controllers to sequential I/O *even* if we are doing
random I/O if we are using ZFS. This is because the Arc cache is already
grouping requests up sequentially so to the array controller it will appear
like sequenti
Yes we do this currently on some systems where we haven't had time to install
and test Cluster software.
Even old 3310 array can be setup so 2 servers have storage visible. We export
pool on one system and import it on the other, move over a virtual IP and the
service is back up.
You *really*
In our data center on CRITICAL systems we plan to survive chains of several
single-type failures. The HA standards we apply to a mail-server for 30,000
people are neccessarily quite high.
A fully redundant 2-node failover clustered system can survive failures of half
or more of it's systems and
Thanks, we have switched over a couple of our arrays. Have not noticed a
performance change so perhaps the effect is minor.
Yes we are using ZFS to do the mirroring between the array LUNs and quite happy
with it for reliability. As someone else said, speed and costs are metrics to
look at but
The new Intel D201GLY2 looks quite good.
Fanless 64-bit CPU, low-power consumption from what I have read. Awaiting
first substantive review from SilentPCReview.com before ordering one.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailin
H, well depends on what you are looking for. Is the speed not enough, or
the size of RAM? I am thinking people found out the original GLY would
actually work with a 2-gig DIMM. So it's possible the GLY2 will accept 2-gig
also, which seems plenty for me. YMMV.
This message posted fro
The info in that tuning guide depends on what Solaris version you are working
with. Last I checked it was not current.
I use Solaris 10u4 and have zfs_nocacheflush set. Haven't played with using
alternate disks for ZIL yet not really sure what that does to my HA model. I
have mirrored LUNS b
We will be using Cyrus to store mail on 2540 arrays.
We have chosen to build 5-disk RAID-5 LUNs in 2 arrays which are both connected
to same host, and mirror and stripe the LUNs. So a ZFS RAID-10 set composed of
4 LUNs. Multi-pathing also in use for redundancy.
My question is any guidance on
> On Dec 1, 2007 7:15 AM, Vincent Fox
>
> Any reason why you are using a mirror of raid-5
> lun's?
>
> I can understand that perhaps you want ZFS to be in
> control of
> rebuilding broken vdev's, if anything should go wrong
> ... but
> rebuilding RAID-5
> Sounds good so far: lots of small files in a largish
> system with presumably significant access parallelism
> makes RAID-Z a non-starter, but RAID-5 should be OK,
> especially if the workload is read-dominated. ZFS
> might aggregate small writes such that their
> performance would be good as w
> From Neil's comment in the blog entry that you
> referenced, that sounds *very* dicey (at least by
> comparison with the level of redundancy that you've
> built into the rest of your system) - even if you
> have rock-solid UPSs (which have still been known to
> fail). Allowing a disk to lie to h
Bill, you have a long-winded way of saying "I don't know". But thanks for
elucidating the possibilities.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/z
Thanks for your observations.
HOWEVER, I didn't pose the question
"How do I architect the HA and storage and everything for an email system?"
Our site like many other data centers has HA standards and politics and all
this other baggage that may lead a design to a certain point. Thus our answe
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Brian Hechinger wrote:
> [1] Finally, someone built a flash SSD that rocks
> (and they know how
> fast it is judging by the pricetag):
> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/mtron_ssd_32_gb
> /
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3167
Great now if only Sun w
So does anyone have any insight on BugID 6535160?
We have verified on a similar system, that ZFS shows big latency in filebench
varmail test.
We formatted the same LUN with UFS and latency went down from 300 ms to 1-2 ms.
http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-1-6535160-1
We run
> ) The write cache is non volatile, but ZFS hasn't
> been configured
> to stop flushing it (set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush =
> 1).
These are a pair of 2540 with dual-controllers, definitely non-volatile cache.
We set the zfs_nocacheflush=1 and that improved things considerably.
ZFS filesystem (2540
We loaded Nevada_78 on a peer T2000 unit. Imported the same ZFS pool. I
didn't even upgrade the pool since we wanted to be able to move it back to
10u4. Cut 'n paste of my colleague's email with the results:
Here's the latest Pepsi Challenge results.
Sol10u4 vs Nevada78. Same tuning options,
As other poster noted, you can disable it completely for testing.
>From my understanding though, it's not as "production-catastrophic" as it
>sounds to delay or disable ZIL.
Many people run Linux boxes with ext3 in the standard setting, which only
journals metadata, not file content. So the pu
Are you already running with zfs_nocacheflush=1? We have SAN arrays with dual
battery-backed controllers for the cache, so we definitely have this set on all
our production systems. It makes a big difference for us.
As I said before I don't see the catastrophe in disabling ZIL though.
We act
> No, we're not using the zfs_nocacheflush=1, but our
> SAN array's are set
> to cache all writebacks, so it shouldn't be needed.
> I may test this, if
> get the chance to reboot one of the servers, but
> I'll bet the storage
> rrays' are working correctly.
Bzzzt, wrong.
Read up on a few thr
I package up 5 or 6 disks into a RAID-5 LUN on our Sun 3510 and 2540 arrays.
Then I use ZFS to RAID-10 these volumes.
Safety first!
Quite frankly I've had ENOUGH of rebuilding trashed filesystems. I am tired
to chasing performance like it's the Holy Grail and shoving other
considerations asi
So the point is, a JBOD with a flash drive in one (or two to mirror the ZIL)
of the slots would be a lot SIMPLER.
We've all spent the last decade or two offloading functions into specialized
hardware, that has turned into these massive unneccessarily complex things.
I don't want to go to a new
> zfs boot on sparc will not be putback on its own.
> It will be putback with the rest of zfs boot support,
> sometime around build 86.
Does this still seem likely to occur, or will it be pushed back further? I see
that build 81 is out today which means we are not far from seeing ZFS boot on
Sp
Awesome work you and your team are doing. Thanks Lori!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Does anyone have any particularly creative ZFS replication strategies they
could share?
I have 5 high-performance Cyrus mail-servers, with about a Terabyte of storage
each of which only 200-300 gigs is used though even including 14 days of
snapshot space.
I am thinking about setting up a singl
Ahem, define "ZFS server". Serving what and to whom?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Solaris 10u4 eh?
Sounds a lot like fsync issues we want into, trying to run Cyrus mail-server
spools in ZFS.
This was highlighted for us by the filebench software varmail test.
OpenSolaris nv78 however worked very well.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
> -Setting zfs_nocacheflush, though got me drastically
> increased throughput--client requests took, on
> average, less than 2 seconds each!
>
> So, in order to use this, I should have a storage
> array, w/battery backup, instead of using the
> internal drives, correct? I have the option of using
Let's say you are paranoid and have built a pool with 40+ disks in a Thumper.
Is there a way to set metadata copies=3 manually?
After having built RAIDZ2 sets with 7-9 disks and then pooled these together,
it just seems like a little bit of extra insurance to increase metadata copies.
I don't
I recall reading that ZFS boot/root will be possible in NV_86 Sparc coming soon.
Do we expect to be able to to define disk setup in the Jumpstart profile at
that time?
Or will that come later?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discus
Is it still the case that there is a kernel panic if the device(s) with the ZFS
pool die?
I was thinking to attach some cheap SATA disks to a system to use for nearline
storage. Then I could use ZFS send/recv on the local system (without ssh) to
keep backups of the stuff in the main pool. The
The mail-stores for University of California Davis for 70K users (50K active)
are on ZFS since this summer. Perfect record of uptime.
It is very nice, if there is some question about the filesystem, to just run
zpool scrub on it while it's hot.
We ZFS mirror LUNs provided over SAN, with multip
Insufficient data.
How big is the pool? How much stored?
Are the external drives all on the same USB bus?
I am switching to eSATA for my next external drive setup as both USB 2.0 and
firewire are just too fricking slow for the large drives these days.
This message posted from opensolaris.or
> We are working very hard to get it into build 88.
*sigh*
Last I heard it was going to be build 86. I saw build 85 come out and thought
"GREAT only a couple more weeks!"
Oh well..
Will we ever be able to boot from a RAIDZ pool, or is that fantasy?
This message posted from opensolaris
Fascinating read, thanks Simon!
I have been using ZFS in production data center for some while now, but it
never occurred to me to use iSCSI with ZFS also.
This gives me some ideas on how to backup our mail pools into some older slower
disks offsite. I find it interesting that while a local ZF
I assume you mean IPMP here, which refers to ethernet multipath.
There is also the other meaning of multipath referring to multiple paths to the
storage array typically enabled by stmsboot command.
We run active-passive (failover) IPMP as it keeps things simple for us and I
have run into some w
You DO mean IPMP then. That's what I was trying to sort out, to make sure that
you were talking about the IP part of things, the iSCSI layer. And not the
paths from the "target" system to it's local storage.
You say "non-ethernet" for your network transport, what ARE you using?
This messag
Oh sure pick nits. Yeah I should have said "network multipath" instead of
"ethernet multipath" but really how often do I encounter non-ethernet networks?
I can't recall the last time I saw a token ring or anything else.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
I don't think ANY situation in which you are mirrored and one half of the
mirror pair becomes unavailable will panic the system. At least this has been
the case when I've tested with local storage haven't tried with iSCSI yet but
will give it a whirl.
I had a simple single ZVOL shared over iSC
Followup, my initiator did eventually panic.
I will have to do some setup to get a ZVOL from another system to mirror with,
and see what happens when one of them goes away. Will post in a day or two on
that.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Followup, my initiator did eventually panic.
I will have to do some setup to get a ZVOL from another system to mirror with,
and see what happens when one of them goes away. Will post in a day or two on
that.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
I would hope at least it has that giant FSYNC patch for ZFS already present?
We ran into this issue and it nearly killed Solaris here in our Data Center as
a product it was such a bad experience.
Fix was in 127728 (x86) and 127729 (Sparc).
Well anyhow good to see U5 is out, hadn't even heard ab
Cyrus mail-stores for UC Davis are in ZFS.
Began as failure ended as success. We hit the FSYNC performance issue and our
systems collapsed under user load. We could not track it down and neither
could the Sun reps we contacted. Eventually I found a reference to FSYNC bug
and we tried out wha
Intel EagleLake boards look very promising for this purpose. Compact low-power
home NAS but with some power to it. Onboard gigabit.
http://www.mini-itx.com/2008/03/06/intels-eaglelake-mini-itx-boards
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zf
I run 3510FC and 2540 units in pairs. I build 2 5-disk RAID5 LUNs in each
array, with 2 disks as global spares. Each array has dual controllers and I'm
doing multipath.
Then from the server I have access to 2 LUNs from 2 arrays, and I build a ZFS
RAID-10 set from these 4 LUNs being sure each
So it's pushed back to build 90 now?
There was an announcement the other day that build 88 was being skipped and
build 89 would be the official release with ZFS boot.
Not a big deal but someone should do an announcement about the change.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
So can I jumpstart and setup the ZFS root config?
Anyone have example profile?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
