Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS very slow under xVM
I've got Solaris Express Community Edition build 75 (75a) installed on an Asus P5K-E/WiFI-AP (ip35/ICH9R based) board. CPU=Q6700, RAM=8Gb, disk=Samsung HD501LJ and (older) Maxtor 6H500F0. When the O/S is running on bare metal, ie no xVM/Xen hypervisor, then everything is fine. When it's booted up running xVM and the hypervisor, then unlike plain disk I/O, and unlike svm volumes, zfs is around 20 time slower. Just a wild guess, but since we're just seeing a similar strange performance problem on an Intel quadcore system with 8GB or memory Can you try to remove some part of the ram, so that the system runs on 4GB instead of 8GB? Or use xen / solaris boot options to restrict physical memory usage to the low 4GB range? It seems that on certain mainboards [*] the bios is unable to install mtrr cachable ranges for all of the 8GB system ram, when when some important stuff ends up in uncachable ram, performance gets *really* bad. [*] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/1/231 This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] first public offering of NexentaStor
On 11/2/07, MC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I consider myself an early adopter of ZFS and pushed it hard on this list and in real life with regards to iSCSI integration, zfs performance issues with latency there of, and how best to use it with NFS. Well, I finally get to talk more about the ZFS-based product I've been beta testing for quite some time. I thought this was the most appropriate place to make it known that NexentaStor is now out, and you can read more of my take at my personal post, http://jmlittle.blogspot.com/2007/11/coming-out-party- for-commodity-storage.html I thought it would be in the normal opensolaris blog listing, but since its not showing up there, this single list seems most appropriate to get interested parties and feedback. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu ss Hmm so is that where all the Nexenta guys have been all this time!?!? :) I look forward to trying out what has been produced. This type of solution is a pleasing one for the consumer. Is there a list of the contributers and what they do? The landscape of Nexenta has changed and I wonder about the details. PS: the website looks kind of busy to the eyes :) PPS: I think the new Nexenta team is the perfect candidate for submitting to the community how they think the OpenSolaris branding and compatibility should work. Would you like a Built with OpenSolaris logo to use? How far would you (or should you) go to maintain compatibility and be certified as OpenSolaris Compatible? I can only speak up to my particular usage and understanding. Its OpenSolaris-based in the sense it is based on the ON/NWS consolidations (aka, NexentaOS or the NCP releases). Its still very much Debian/Ubuntu like in that it has that packaging, that installer, etc. Time will tell how compatible that is deemed to be. People doing real work on real projects should chime on on those issues because there is far too much yapping from people like me who do nothing :) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Backport of vfs_zfsacl.c to samba 3.0.26a, [and NexentaStor]
I'm confused by this and NexentaStor... wouldn't it be better to use b77? with: Heads Up: File system framework changes (supplement to CIFS' head's up) Heads Up: Flag Day (Addendum) (CIFS Service) Heads Up: Flag Day (CIFS Service) caller_context_t in all VOPs - PSARC/2007/218 VFS Feature Registration and ACL on Create - PSARC/2007/227 ZFS Case-insensitive support - PSARC/2007/244 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 ls(1) new command line options '-/' and '-%': CIFS system attributes support - PSARC/2007/394 Modified Access Checks for CIFS - PSARC/2007/403 Add system attribute support to chmod(1) - PSARC/2007/410 CIFS system attributes support for cp(1), pack(1), unpack(1), compress(1) and uncompress(1) - PSARC/2007/432 Rescind SETTABLE Attribute - PSARC/2007/444 CIFS system attributes support for cpio(1), pax(1), tar(1) - PSARC/2007/459 Update utilities to match CIFS system attributes changes. - PSARC/2007/546 ZFS sharesmb property - PSARC/2007/560 VFS Feature Registration and ACL on Create - PSARC/2007/227 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 CIFS Service - PSARC/2006/715 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/all/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS very slow under xVM
On 11/1/07, Nathan Kroenert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tell me - If you watch with an iostat -x 1, do you see bursts of I/O then periods of nothing, or just a slow stream of data? I was seeing intermittent stoppages in I/O, with bursts of data on occasion... I have seen this with ZFS under 10U3, both SPARC and x86, although the cycle rate differed. Basically, no i/o reported via zpool iostat 1 or iostat -xn 1 (to the raw devices) for a period of time followed by a second of ramp up, one or more seconds of excellent throughput (given the underlying disk systems), a second of slow down, then more samples with no i/o. The period between peaks was 10 seconds in one case and 7 in the other. I forget which was SPARC and which was x86. I assumed this had to do with ZFS caching i/o until it had a large enough block to be worth writing. In some cases the data was coming in via the network (NFS in one SMB in the other), but in neither case was the network interface saturated (in fact, I saw similar periods of no activity on the network) and the did not seem to be a CPU limitation (load was low and idle time high). I have also seen this with local disk to disk copies (from UFS to ZFS or ZFS to ZFS). -- Paul Kraus Albacon 2008 Facilities ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] first public offering of NexentaStor
I consider myself an early adopter of ZFS and pushed it hard on this list and in real life with regards to iSCSI integration, zfs performance issues with latency there of, and how best to use it with NFS. Well, I finally get to talk more about the ZFS-based product I've been beta testing for quite some time. I thought this was the most appropriate place to make it known that NexentaStor is now out, and you can read more of my take at my personal post, http://jmlittle.blogspot.com/2007/11/coming-out-party- for-commodity-storage.html I thought it would be in the normal opensolaris blog listing, but since its not showing up there, this single list seems most appropriate to get interested parties and feedback. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu ss Hmm so is that where all the Nexenta guys have been all this time!?!? :) I look forward to trying out what has been produced. This type of solution is a pleasing one for the consumer. Is there a list of the contributers and what they do? The landscape of Nexenta has changed and I wonder about the details. PS: the website looks kind of busy to the eyes :) PPS: I think the new Nexenta team is the perfect candidate for submitting to the community how they think the OpenSolaris branding and compatibility should work. Would you like a Built with OpenSolaris logo to use? How far would you (or should you) go to maintain compatibility and be certified as OpenSolaris Compatible? People doing real work on real projects should chime on on those issues because there is far too much yapping from people like me who do nothing :) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS very slow under xVM
I've removed half the memory, leaving 4Gb, and rebooted into Solaris xVM, and re-tried under Dom0. Sadly, I still get a similar problem. With dd if=/dev/zero of=myfile bs=16k count=15 I get command returning in 15 seconds, and zpool iostat 1 1000 shows 22 records with an IO rate of around 80M, then 209 records of 2.5M (pretty consistent), then the final 11 records climbing to 2.82, 3.29, 3.05, 3.32, 3.17, 3.20, 3.33, 4.41, 5.44, 8.11 regards Martin This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Force SATA1 on AOC-SAT2-MV8
I have a supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 and am having some issues getting drives to work. From what I can tell, my cables are to long to use with SATA2. I got some drives to work by jumpering them down to sata1, but other drives I can't jumper without opening the case and voiding the drive warranty. Does anyone know if there is a system setting to drop it back to SATA1? I use zfs on a raid2 if makes a difference. This is on release of OpenSolaris 74. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] What is the correct way to replace a good disk?
I have a 9-bay JBOD configured as a raidz2. One of the disks, which is on-line and fine, needs to be swapped out and replaced. I have been looking though the zfs admin guide and am confused on how I should go about swapping out. I though I could put the disk off-line, remove it, put a new disk in, and put on-line. Does this sound right? Any help would be great Thanks Chris This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] first public offering of NexentaStor
Joe Little wrote: On 11/2/07, MC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I consider myself an early adopter of ZFS and pushed it hard on this list and in real life with regards to iSCSI integration, zfs performance issues with latency there of, and how best to use it with NFS. Well, I finally get to talk more about the ZFS-based product I've been beta testing for quite some time. I thought this was the most appropriate place to make it known that NexentaStor is now out, and you can read more of my take at my personal post, http://jmlittle.blogspot.com/2007/11/coming-out-party- for-commodity-storage.html I thought it would be in the normal opensolaris blog listing, but since its not showing up there, this single list seems most appropriate to get interested parties and feedback. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu ss Hmm so is that where all the Nexenta guys have been all this time!?!? :) I look forward to trying out what has been produced. This type of solution is a pleasing one for the consumer. Is there a list of the contributers and what they do? The landscape of Nexenta has changed and I wonder about the details. PS: the website looks kind of busy to the eyes :) PPS: I think the new Nexenta team is the perfect candidate for submitting to the community how they think the OpenSolaris branding and compatibility should work. Would you like a Built with OpenSolaris logo to use? How far would you (or should you) go to maintain compatibility and be certified as OpenSolaris Compatible? I can only speak up to my particular usage and understanding. Its OpenSolaris-based in the sense it is based on the ON/NWS consolidations (aka, NexentaOS or the NCP releases). Its still very much Debian/Ubuntu like in that it has that packaging, that installer, etc. Time will tell how compatible that is deemed to be. That's about right. There is a little bit of a compatibility layer for the .pkg format. For example, pkgadd is wrapped to convert a .pkg to a .deb and install the .deb. Sometimes things don't work (like the sun compiler packages) but sometimes they do. I would expect this type of thing to get better over time. Supporting .pkg seems like a plus in being OpenSolaris Compatible. There is also a bit of your own choosing for how compatible you want to be. An example is that Nexenta packs the Sun ssh build but also allows installation of the Debian/Ubuntu build of the openssh package. The Sun ssh is exactly what you expect. One thing that is difficult and not entirely dealt with is upgrading zones to stay in sync with the global zone core libraries. Of course, it seems that is a little bit of a problem for more than just Nexenta ;) ZFS/iSCSI works great out of the box and has actually allowed me to import pools that an older Solaris hosts couldn't (because of pool problems). We are running Nexenta in production on a Thumper, two x4100's, and a generic AMD x86_64 machine. I can't wait to load up the upcoming 1.0! -Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS very slow under xVM
Hmm, I just repeated this test on my system: bash-3.2# uname -a SunOS soe-x4200m2-6 5.11 onnv-gate:2007-11-02 i86pc i386 i86xpv bash-3.2# prtconf | more System Configuration: Sun Microsystems i86pc Memory size: 7945 Megabytes bash-3.2# prtdiag | more System Configuration: Sun Microsystems Sun Fire X4200 M2 BIOS Configuration: American Megatrends Inc. 080012 02/02/2007 BMC Configuration: IPMI 1.5 (KCS: Keyboard Controller Style) bash-3.2# ptime dd if=/dev/zero of=/xen/myfile bs=16k count=15 15+0 records in 15+0 records out real 31.927 user0.689 sys15.750 bash-3.2# zpool iostat 1 capacity operationsbandwidth pool used avail read write read write -- - - - - - - xen 15.3G 121G 0261 0 32.7M xen 15.3G 121G 0350 0 43.8M xen 15.3G 121G 0392 0 48.9M xen 15.3G 121G 0631 0 79.0M xen 15.5G 121G 0532 0 60.1M xen 15.6G 120G 0570 0 65.1M xen 15.6G 120G 0645 0 80.7M xen 15.6G 120G 0516 0 63.6M xen 15.7G 120G 0403 0 39.9M xen 15.7G 120G 0585 0 73.1M xen 15.7G 120G 0573 0 71.7M xen 15.7G 120G 0579 0 72.4M xen 15.7G 120G 0583 0 72.9M xen 15.7G 120G 0568 0 71.1M xen 16.1G 120G 0400 0 39.0M xen 16.1G 120G 0584 0 73.0M xen 16.1G 120G 0568 0 71.0M xen 16.1G 120G 0585 0 73.1M xen 16.1G 120G 0583 0 72.8M xen 16.1G 120G 0665 0 83.2M xen 16.1G 120G 0643 0 80.4M xen 16.1G 120G 0603 0 75.0M xen 16.1G 120G 5526 320K 64.9M xen 16.7G 119G 0582 0 68.0M xen 16.7G 119G 0639 0 78.5M xen 16.7G 119G 0641 0 80.2M xen 16.7G 119G 0664 0 83.0M xen 16.7G 119G 0629 0 78.5M xen 16.7G 119G 0654 0 81.7M xen 17.2G 119G 0563 63.4K 63.5M xen 17.3G 119G 0525 0 59.2M xen 17.3G 119G 0619 0 71.4M xen 17.4G 119G 0 7 0 448K xen 17.4G 119G 0 0 0 0 xen 17.4G 119G 0408 0 51.1M xen 17.4G 119G 0618 0 76.5M xen 17.6G 118G 0264 0 27.4M xen 17.6G 118G 0 0 0 0 xen 17.6G 118G 0 0 0 0 xen 17.6G 118G 0 0 0 0 ...ad infinitum I don't seem to be experiencing the same result as yourself. The behaviour of ZFS might vary between invocations, but I don't think that is related to xVM. Can you get the results to vary when just booting under bare metal? Gary On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:46:56AM -0700, Martin wrote: I've removed half the memory, leaving 4Gb, and rebooted into Solaris xVM, and re-tried under Dom0. Sadly, I still get a similar problem. With dd if=/dev/zero of=myfile bs=16k count=15 I get command returning in 15 seconds, and zpool iostat 1 1000 shows 22 records with an IO rate of around 80M, then 209 records of 2.5M (pretty consistent), then the final 11 records climbing to 2.82, 3.29, 3.05, 3.32, 3.17, 3.20, 3.33, 4.41, 5.44, 8.11 regards Martin This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Gary Pennington Solaris Core OS Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] What is the correct way to replace a good disk?
Chris, You need to use the zpool replace command. I recently enhanced this section of the admin guide with more explicit instructions on page 68, here: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfsadmin.pdf If these are hot-swappable disks, for example, c0t1d0, then use this syntax: # zpool replace pool-name c0t1d0 ZFS recognizes that this is a replacement disk in the same location. You don't need to offline the disk to be replaced unless it is failing and making the pool unhappy. Chris Williams wrote: I have a 9-bay JBOD configured as a raidz2. One of the disks, which is on-line and fine, needs to be swapped out and replaced. I have been looking though the zfs admin guide and am confused on how I should go about swapping out. I though I could put the disk off-line, remove it, put a new disk in, and put on-line. Does this sound right? Any help would be great Thanks Chris This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] What is the correct way to replace a good disk?
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 11:20 -0700, Chris Williams wrote: I have a 9-bay JBOD configured as a raidz2. One of the disks, which is on-line and fine, needs to be swapped out and replaced. I have been looking though the zfs admin guide and am confused on how I should go about swapping out. I though I could put the disk off-line, remove it, put a new disk in, and put on-line. Does this sound right? That sounds right. You'll have improved availability if you have a spare disk slot and can do zpool replace $pool $old $new, but offline followed by a reconstruct-in-place via zpool replace $pool $disk also works. - Bill ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS Jumpstart integration and the amazing invisible zpool.cache
I've been wrestling with implementing some ZFS mounts for /var and /usr into a jumpstart setup. I know that jumpstart does know anything about zfs as in your can't define ZFS volumes or pools in the profile. I've gone ahead and let the JS do a base install into a single ufs slice and then attempted to create the zpool and zfs volumes in the finish script and ufsdump|ufsrestore the data from the /usr and /var partitions into the new zfs volumes. Problem is there doesn't seem to be a way to ensure that the zpool is imported into the freshly built system on the first reboot. I see in the archives here from a few weeks ago someone was asking a similar question and it was suggested that as part of the finish script the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache could be copied to /etc/zfs/zpool.cache but it has been my experience through some serious testing that when creating and managing zfs pools and volumes in the jumpstart scripts that no zpool.cache file is created. Even including find / -name zpool.cache in the finish script returns no hits on that file name. Now, I'm aware that the zpool.cache file isn't intended to really be used for administrative tasks as it's format and existence aren't even well documented or solidified as part of the management framework for zfs moving forward; I would however REALLY like to know why in every other situation when managing zfs pools/vols that this file is created, but in this one situation it isn't. I would be equally curious to know if it is possible to maybe force the creation of this file or as a last option, at least make zpool statically linked in the default solaris distribution so that I may put a method and toolchain neccessary for import pools in the early part of the SMF boot sequence. Thanks in Advance for any insight as to how to work this out. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Backport of vfs_zfsacl.c to samba 3.0.26a, [and NexentaStor]
On 11/2/07, Rob Logan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm confused by this and NexentaStor... wouldn't it be better to use b77? with: Heads Up: File system framework changes (supplement to CIFS' head's up) Heads Up: Flag Day (Addendum) (CIFS Service) Heads Up: Flag Day (CIFS Service) caller_context_t in all VOPs - PSARC/2007/218 VFS Feature Registration and ACL on Create - PSARC/2007/227 ZFS Case-insensitive support - PSARC/2007/244 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 ls(1) new command line options '-/' and '-%': CIFS system attributes support - PSARC/2007/394 Modified Access Checks for CIFS - PSARC/2007/403 Add system attribute support to chmod(1) - PSARC/2007/410 CIFS system attributes support for cp(1), pack(1), unpack(1), compress(1) and uncompress(1) - PSARC/2007/432 Rescind SETTABLE Attribute - PSARC/2007/444 CIFS system attributes support for cpio(1), pax(1), tar(1) - PSARC/2007/459 Update utilities to match CIFS system attributes changes. - PSARC/2007/546 ZFS sharesmb property - PSARC/2007/560 VFS Feature Registration and ACL on Create - PSARC/2007/227 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 Extensible Attribute Interfaces - PSARC/2007/315 CIFS Service - PSARC/2006/715 It doesn't yet have anything to do with NexentaStor per se. I know that CIFS service support in the BETA is preliminary, and the timing of the availability makes a CIFS service tied to ZFS and its share commands much more attractive. Depending on its maturity, I hope Nexenta folk will have it included in their final release if not somewhere on their roadmap. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/all/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Force SATA1 on AOC-SAT2-MV8
Jumpering drives by removing the cover? Do you mean opening the chassis because they aren't removable from the outside? Your cable is longer than 1 meter inside of a chasis?? I think sataI is 2 meters and sataII is 1 meter. As far as a system setting for demoting these to sataI I don't know, but I don't think its possible.. Don't hold me to that however, I only say that because THE way I demote them to sataI is by removing a jumper actually :) HTH, Andy On 11/2/07 12:29 PM, Eric Haycraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 and am having some issues getting drives to work. From what I can tell, my cables are to long to use with SATA2. I got some drives to work by jumpering them down to sata1, but other drives I can't jumper without opening the case and voiding the drive warranty. Does anyone know if there is a system setting to drop it back to SATA1? I use zfs on a raid2 if makes a difference. This is on release of OpenSolaris 74. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Force SATA1 on AOC-SAT2-MV8
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Eric Haycraft wrote: reformatted I have a supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 and am having some issues getting drives to work. From what I can tell, my cables are to long to use with SATA2. I got some drives to work by jumpering them down to sata1, but other drives I can't jumper without opening the case and voiding the drive warranty. Does anyone know if there is a system setting to drop it back to SATA1? I use zfs on a raid2 if makes a difference. This is on release of OpenSolaris 74. What is the make/model# for the disk drives? Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ Graduate from sugar-coating school? Sorry - I never attended! :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended many-port SATA controllers for budget ZFS
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Peter Schuller wrote: snip Does anyone have suggestions on what to choose, that will actually work the way you want it for JBOD use with ZFS? Or avenus of investigation? Is there any chance of a lowly consumer getting any information out of LSI? Is there ^^ Your best bet is to call Tech Support and not Sales. I've found LSI tech support to be very responsive to individual customers. some other manufacturer that provide low-budget stuff that you can get some technical information about? Does anyone have some specific knowledge of a suitable product? I recommend the SuperMicro card - but that is PCI-X and I think you're looking for PCI-Express? I've used the older LSI 4-port (internal) PCI Express SAS3041E card which is still available for around $165 and works well with ZFS (SATA or SAS drives). The newer cards are less expensive - but its not clear from the LSI website if they support JBOD operation or if you can form a mirror or stripe using only one drive and present it to ZFS as a single drive. Please let us know what you find out... Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ Graduate from sugar-coating school? Sorry - I never attended! :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
