This is true, but I think it's the testing bit that worries me. It's
hard to lab out, and fully test an equivalent setup that has 350 active
clients pounding on it to test usability and stability. One of our
boxes has a boat load of special software running and various tweaks,
that also would need to be validated. in other words, upgrades have
tended to be painful.
We don't really have any Open Solaris experience yet, and we've more or
less trusted Sun to ring out the issues to minimize the problems, and
make these upgrades smoother. Of course, the irony is that the
requirement for this very stability is why we haven't seen the features
in the ZFS code we need in Solaris 10.
Thanks,
Jon
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 2:27 PM, Jonathan Loran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before ranting any more, I'll do the test of disabling the ZIL. We may
have to build out these systems with Open Solaris, but that will be hard
as they are in production. I would have to install the new OS on test
systems and swap out the drives during scheduled down time. Ouch.
Live upgrade can be very helpful here, either for upgrading or
applying a flash archive. Once you are comfortable that Nevada
performs like you want, you could prep the new OS on alternate slices
or broken mirrors. Activating the updated OS should take only a few
seconds longer than a standard "init 6". Failback is similarly easy.
I can't remember the last time I swapped physical drives to minimize
the outage during an upgrade.
--
- _____/ _____/ / - Jonathan Loran - -
- / / / IT Manager -
- _____ / _____ / / Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley
- / / / (510) 643-5146 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- ______/ ______/ ______/ AST:7731^29u18e3
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
