Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Richard,
Thursday, May 24, 2007, 6:10:34 PM, you wrote:
RE> Incidentally, thumper field reliability is better than we expected. This
is causing
RE> me to do extra work, because I have to explain why.
I've got some thumpers and there're very reliable.
Even disks aren't failing that much - even less than I expected from
observation on other arrays in the same environment.
Yes, our data is consistent with your observation.
The main problems with x4500+zfs are:
1. hot spare support in zfs - right now it is far from ideal
Agree. The team is working on this, but I'm not sure of the current status.
2. raidz2 - resilver with lot of small files takes too long
3. SVM root disk mirror over jumpstart doesn't work with x4500 (bug
opened)
4. I would consider future version of x4500 to have a 2xCF card (or
something similar) to boot system from - so two disk won't be
wasted just for OS (2x1TB in a few months).
Current version has a CF card slot, but AFAIK, it is "not supported."
We have a number of servers which do support CF for boot, and more in
the pipeline (very popular with some deployment scenarios :-).
But I am curious as to why you believe 2x CF are necessary?
I presume this is so that you can mirror. But the remaining memory
in such systems is not mirrored. Comments and experiences are welcome.
-- richard
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
