Sriram, On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:12:42AM +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Sanjeev <sanjeev.bagew...@sun.com> wrote: > > Sendai, > > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 03:21:25PM -0800, Andras Spitzer wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> When I read the ZFS manual, it usually recommends to configure redundancy > >> at the ZFS layer, mainly because there are features that will work only > >> with redundant configuration (like corrupted data correction), also it > >> implies that the overall robustness will improve. > >> > >> My question is simple, what is the recommended configuration on SAN (on > >> high-end EMC, like the Symmetrix DMX series for example) where usually the > >> redundancy is configured at the array level, so most likely we would use > >> simple ZFS layout, without redundancy? > > > > >From my experience, this is a bad idea. I ahve seen couple of cases with > > >such > > config (no redundancy at ZFS level) where the connection between the HBA > > and the > > storage was flaky. And there was no way for ZFS to recover. I agree that > > MPxIO > > or any other multipathing handles failure of links. But, that in itself is > > not > > sufficient. > > > > So what would you recommend then, Sanjeev ? > - multiple ZFS pools running on a SAN ?
That's fine. What I meant was you need to have redundancy at ZFS level. > - An S10 box or boxes that provide ZFS backed iSCSI ? That should be fine as well. The point of discussion was whether we should have redundancy at ZFS level and the answer is yes. Thanks and regards, Sanjeev > > -- Sriram -- ---------------- Sanjeev Bagewadi Solaris RPE Bangalore, India _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
