Thanks Jim and all the other who have replied so far
On 05/30/2011 11:37 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: > ... > > So if your application can live with the unit of failover being a bunch of 21 > or 24 disks - > that might be a way to go. However each head would only have one connection to > each backplane, and I'm not sure if you can STONITH the non-leading head to > enforce > failovers (and enable the specific PRI/SEC chip of the backplane). That exactly my point. I don't need any internal failover which restricts which disks a host can see. We want to failover between hosts, not connections. For the later we would use another JBOD and let ZFS do the dirty job or mirroring. We run a similar setup for years but with FC connected RAID systems. Over time they are kind of limited when it comes to price/performance > Also one point was stressed many times in the docs: these failover backplanes > require use of SAS drives, no SATA (while the single-path BPs are okay with > both > SAS and SATA). Still, according to the forums, SATA disks on shared backplanes > often give too much headache and may give too little performance in > comparison... I would be fine with SAS as well Thomas _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
