Re: [zfs-discuss] Oracle releases Solaris 11 for Sparc and x86 servers
AFAIK, there is no change in open source policy for Oracle Solaris On 11/9/2011 10:34 PM, Fred Liu wrote: ... so when will zfs-related improvement make it to solaris- derivatives :D ? I am also very curious about Oracle's policy about source code. ;-) Fred ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Hung-Sheng Tsao Ph D. Founder Principal HopBit GridComputing LLC cell: 9734950840 http://laotsao.wordpress.com/ http://laotsao.blogspot.com/ attachment: laotsao.vcf___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Data distribution not even between vdevs
From: Gregg Wonderly [mailto:gregg...@gmail.com] There is no automatic way to do it. For me, this is a key issue. If there was an automatic rebalancing mechanism, that same mechanism would work perfectly to allow pools to have disk sets removed. It would provide the needed basic mechanism of just moving stuff around to eliminate the use of a particular part of the pool that you wanted to remove. Search this list for bp_rewrite. There are many features that are dependent on this feature - rebalance, defrag, vdev removal, toggle compression or dedup for existing data, etc. It's long since requested by many people, but apparently fundamentally difficult to do, or something. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Savit Also, not a good idea for performance to partition the disks as you suggest. Not totally true. By default, if you partition the disks, then the disk write cache gets disabled. But it's trivial to simply force enable it thus solving the problem. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Reversing fdisk changes
I have a Solaris 10 machine that I've been having an interesting time with today. (Live Upgrade didn't work, stmsboot didn't work, I managed to rebuild it with jumpstart at about the 10th attempt.) Anyway, it looks like one of my drives has had its label overwritten by fdisk, pool: disk00 id: 10866402904016234458 state: UNAVAIL status: One or more devices are missing from the system. action: The pool cannot be imported. Attach the missing devices and try again. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-6X config: disk00 UNAVAIL missing device c2t0d1 ONLINE Additional devices are known to be part of this pool, though their exact configuration cannot be determined. And if I look at format, I see the drives [it's a 2530, btw] as 0. c1t0d0 DEFAULT cyl 44381 alt 2 hd 255 sec 126 /pci@0,0/pci10de,5d@d/pci1000,3150@0/sd@0,0 4. c2t0d1 SUN-LCSM100_S-0670-680.00GB /pci@0,0/pci10de,5d@e/pci1000,3150@0/sd@0,1 So it looks like c1t0d0 (which is where I think the other half of the pool is) has been relabelled by fdisk and has an SMI label on it. Is there a way to reverse this, and if so, how? This is annoying, rather than critical: the system is out of service and I can reconstruct the data if necessary. Although knowing how to fix this would be generally useful in the future... Thanks, -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of darkblue 1 * XEON 5606 1 * supermirco X8DT3-LN4F 6 * 4G RECC RAM 22 * WD RE3 1T harddisk 4 * intel 320 (160G) SSD 1 * supermicro 846E1-900B chassis I just want to say, this isn't supported hardware, and although many people will say they do this without problem, I've heard just as many people (including myself) saying it's unstable that way. I recommend buying either the oracle hardware or the nexenta on whatever they recommend for hardware. Definitely DO NOT run the free version of solaris without updates and expect it to be reliable. But that's a separate issue. I'm also emphasizing that even if you pay for solaris support on non-oracle hardware, don't expect it to be great. But maybe it will be. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of darkblue Why would you want your root pool to be on the SSD? Do you expect an extremely high I/O rate for the OS disks? Also, not a good idea for performance to partition the disks as you suggest. because the solaris os occuppied the whole 1TB disk is a waste and the RAM is only 24G, does this could handle such big cache（160G）? Putting rpool on the SSD is a waste. Instead of partitioning the SSD into cache rpool, why not parttiion the 1TB HDD into something like 100G for rpool, and the rest for the main data pool? It makes sense if you're using mirrors instead of raidz. (I definitely recommend using mirrors instead of raidz for your system running VM's) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Tomas Forsman wrote: At all times, if there's a server crash, ZFS will come back along at next boot or mount, and the filesystem will be in a consistent state, that was indeed a valid state which the filesystem actually passed through at some moment in time. So as long as all the applications you're running can accept the possibility of going back in time as much as 30 sec, following an ungraceful ZFS crash, then it's safe to disable ZIL (set sync=disabled). Client writes block 0, server says OK and writes it to disk. Client writes block 1, server says OK and crashes before it's on disk. Client writes block 2.. waaiits.. waiits.. server comes up and, server says OK and writes it to disk. Now, from the view of the clients, block 0-2 are all OK'd by the server and no visible errors. On the server, block 1 never arrived on disk and you've got silent corruption. The silent corruption (of zfs) does not occur due to simple reason that flushing all of the block writes are acknowledged by the disks and then a new transaction occurs to start the next transaction group. The previous transaction is not closed until the next transaction has been successfully started by writing the previous TXG group record to disk. Given properly working hardware, the worst case scenario is losing the whole transaction group and no corruption occurs. Loss of data as seen by the client can definitely occur. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Couple of questions about ZFS on laptops
On Nov 9, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Francois Dion wrote: Some laptops have pc card and expresscard slots, and you can get an adapter for sd card, so you could set up your os non mirrored and just set up home on a pair of sd cards. Something like http://www.amazon.com/Sandisk-SDAD109A11-Digital-Card-Express/dp/B000W3QLLW I've done this in the past, variations of this, including using a partition and a usb stick: SDcard is suitable for boot *only* if it is connected via USB. While the drivers I wrote for SDHCI work fine for using media, you can't boot off it generally -- usually the laptop BIOS simply lacks the support needed to see these. It used to be that CompactFlash was a preferred option, but I think CF is falling out of favor these days. - Garrett http://solarisdesktop.blogspot.com/2007/02/stick-to-zfs-or-laptop-with-mirrored.html Wow, where did the time go, that was almost 5 years ago... Anyway, i pretty much ditched carrying the laptop, the current one i have is too heavy (m4400). But it does run really nicely sol11 and openindiana. The m4400 is set up with 2 drives, not mirrored. I'm tempted to put a sandforce based ssd for faster booting and better zfs perf for demos. Then i have an sdcard and expresscard adapter for sd. This gives me 16gb mirrored for my documents, which is plenty. Francois Sent from my iPad On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote: Hello all, I am thinking about a new laptop. I see that there are a number of higher-performance models (incidenatlly, they are also marketed as gamer ones) which offer two SATA 2.5 bays and an SD flash card slot. Vendors usually position the two-HDD bay part as either get lots of capacity with RAID0 over two HDDs, or get some capacity and some performance by mixing one HDD with one SSD. Some vendors go as far as suggesting a highest performance with RAID0 over two SSDs. Now, if I were to use this for work with ZFS on an OpenSolaris-descendant OS, and I like my data enough to want it mirrored, but still I want an SSD performance boost (i.e. to run VMs in real-time), I seem to have a number of options: 1) Use a ZFS mirror of two SSDs - seems too pricey 2) Use a HDD with redundant data (copies=2 or mirroring over two partitions), and an SSD for L2ARC (+maybe ZIL) - possible unreliability if the only HDD breaks 3) Use a ZFS mirror of two HDDs - lowest performance 4) Use a ZFS mirror of two HDDs and an SD card for L2ARC. Perhaps add another built-in flash card with PCMCIA adapters for CF, etc. Now, there is a couple of question points for me here. One was raised in my recent questions about CF ports in a Thumper. The general reply was that even high-performance CF cards are aimed for linear RW patterns and may be slower than HDDs for random access needed as L2ARCs, so flash cards may actually lower the system performance. I wonder if the same is the case with SD cards, and/or if anyone encountered (and can advise) some CF/SD cards with good random access performance (better than HDD random IOPS). Perhaps an extra IO path can be beneficial even if random performances are on the same scale - HDDs would have less work anyway and can perform better with their other tasks? On another hand, how would current ZFS behave if someone ejects an L2ARC device (flash card) and replaces it with another unsuspecting card, i.e. one from a photo camera? Would ZFS automatically replace the L2ARC device and kill the photos, or would the cache be disabled with no fatal implication for the pools nor for the other card? Ultimately, when the ex-L2ARC card gets plugged back in, would ZFS automagically attach it as the cache device, or does this have to be done manually? Second question regards single-HDD reliability: I can do ZFS mirroring over two partitions/slices, or I can configure copies=2 for the datasets. Either way I think I can get protection from bad blocks of whatever nature, as long as the spindle spins. Can these two methods be considered equivalent, or is one preferred (and for what reason)? Also, how do other list readers place and solve their preferences with their OpenSolaris-based laptops? ;) Thanks, //Jim Klimov ___ 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] weird bug with Seagate 3TB USB3 drive
In message 4e9db04b.80...@oracle.com, Cindy Swearingen writes: This is CR 7102272. What is the title of this BugId? I'm trying to attach my Oracle CSI to it but Chuck Rozwat and company's support engineer can't seem to find it. Once I get upgraded from S11x SRU12 to S11, I'll reproduce on a more recent kernel build. Thanks, John groenv...@acm.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD
On 11/10/2011 06:38 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Savit Also, not a good idea for performance to partition the disks as you suggest. Not totally true. By default, if you partition the disks, then the disk write cache gets disabled. But it's trivial to simply force enable it thus solving the problem. Granted - I just didn't want to get into a long story. With a self-described 'newbie' building a storage server I felt the best advice is to keep as simple as possible without adding steps (and without adding exposition about cache on partitioned disks - but now that you brought it up, yes, he can certainly do that). Besides, there's always a way to fill up the 1TB disks :-) Besides the OS image, it could also store gold images for the guest virtual machines, maintained separately from the operational images. regards, Jeff -- *Jeff Savit* | Principal Sales Consultant Phone: 602.824.6275 | Email: jeff.sa...@oracle.com | Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/jsavit Oracle North America Commercial Hardware Operating Environments Infrastructure S/W Pillar 2355 E Camelback Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85016 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] weird bug with Seagate 3TB USB3 drive
Hi John, CR 7102272: ZFS storage pool created on a 3 TB USB 3.0 device has device label problems Let us know if this is still a problem in the OS11 FCS release. Thanks, Cindy On 11/10/11 08:55, John D Groenveld wrote: In message4e9db04b.80...@oracle.com, Cindy Swearingen writes: This is CR 7102272. What is the title of this BugId? I'm trying to attach my Oracle CSI to it but Chuck Rozwat and company's support engineer can't seem to find it. Once I get upgraded from S11x SRU12 to S11, I'll reproduce on a more recent kernel build. Thanks, John groenv...@acm.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] zfs sync=disabled property
On 10 November, 2011 - Bob Friesenhahn sent me these 1,6K bytes:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Tomas Forsman wrote:
At all times, if there's a server crash, ZFS will come back along at next
boot or mount, and the filesystem will be in a consistent state, that was
indeed a valid state which the filesystem actually passed through at some
moment in time. So as long as all the applications you're running can
accept the possibility of going back in time as much as 30 sec, following
an ungraceful ZFS crash, then it's safe to disable ZIL (set sync=disabled).
Client writes block 0, server says OK and writes it to disk.
Client writes block 1, server says OK and crashes before it's on disk.
Client writes block 2.. waaiits.. waiits.. server comes up and, server
says OK and writes it to disk.
Now, from the view of the clients, block 0-2 are all OK'd by the server
and no visible errors.
On the server, block 1 never arrived on disk and you've got silent
corruption.
The silent corruption (of zfs) does not occur due to simple reason that
flushing all of the block writes are acknowledged by the disks and then a
new transaction occurs to start the next transaction group. The previous
transaction is not closed until the next transaction has been
successfully started by writing the previous TXG group record to disk.
Given properly working hardware, the worst case scenario is losing the
whole transaction group and no corruption occurs.
Loss of data as seen by the client can definitely occur.
When a client writes something, and something else ends up on disk - I
call that corruption. Doesn't matter whose fault it is and technical
details, the wrong data was stored despite the client being careful when
writing.
/Tomas
--
Tomas Forsman, st...@acc.umu.se, http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 14:12, Tomas Forsman st...@acc.umu.se wrote: On 10 November, 2011 - Bob Friesenhahn sent me these 1,6K bytes: On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Tomas Forsman wrote: At all times, if there's a server crash, ZFS will come back along at next boot or mount, and the filesystem will be in a consistent state, that was indeed a valid state which the filesystem actually passed through at some moment in time. So as long as all the applications you're running can accept the possibility of going back in time as much as 30 sec, following an ungraceful ZFS crash, then it's safe to disable ZIL (set sync=disabled). Client writes block 0, server says OK and writes it to disk. Client writes block 1, server says OK and crashes before it's on disk. Client writes block 2.. waaiits.. waiits.. server comes up and, server says OK and writes it to disk. When a client writes something, and something else ends up on disk - I call that corruption. Doesn't matter whose fault it is and technical details, the wrong data was stored despite the client being careful when writing. If the hardware is behaving itself (actually doing a cache flush when ZFS asks it to, for example) the server won't say OK for block 1 until it's actually on disk. This behavior is what makes NFS over ZFS slow without a slog: NFS does everything O_SYNC by default, so ZFS runs around syncing all the disks all the time. Therefore, you won't lose data in this circumstance. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property
On 10 November, 2011 - Will Murnane sent me these 1,5K bytes:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 14:12, Tomas Forsman st...@acc.umu.se wrote:
On 10 November, 2011 - Bob Friesenhahn sent me these 1,6K bytes:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Tomas Forsman wrote:
At all times, if there's a server crash, ZFS will come back along at next
boot or mount, and the filesystem will be in a consistent state, that was
indeed a valid state which the filesystem actually passed through at some
moment in time. So as long as all the applications you're running can
accept the possibility of going back in time as much as 30 sec,
following
an ungraceful ZFS crash, then it's safe to disable ZIL (set
sync=disabled).
Client writes block 0, server says OK and writes it to disk.
Client writes block 1, server says OK and crashes before it's on disk.
Client writes block 2.. waaiits.. waiits.. server comes up and, server
says OK and writes it to disk.
When a client writes something, and something else ends up on disk - I
call that corruption. Doesn't matter whose fault it is and technical
details, the wrong data was stored despite the client being careful when
writing.
If the hardware is behaving itself (actually doing a cache flush when
ZFS asks it to, for example) the server won't say OK for block 1 until
it's actually on disk. This behavior is what makes NFS over ZFS slow
without a slog: NFS does everything O_SYNC by default, so ZFS runs
around syncing all the disks all the time. Therefore, you won't lose
data in this circumstance.
Which is exactly what this thread is about, consequences from
-disabling- sync.
/Tomas
--
Tomas Forsman, st...@acc.umu.se, http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD
On 11/11/11 02:42 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of darkblue 1 * XEON 5606 1 * supermirco X8DT3-LN4F 6 * 4G RECC RAM 22 * WD RE3 1T harddisk 4 * intel 320 (160G) SSD 1 * supermicro 846E1-900B chassis I just want to say, this isn't supported hardware, and although many people will say they do this without problem, I've heard just as many people (including myself) saying it's unstable that way. I've never had issues with Supermicro boards. I'm using a similar model and everything on the board is supported. I recommend buying either the oracle hardware or the nexenta on whatever they recommend for hardware. Definitely DO NOT run the free version of solaris without updates and expect it to be reliable. That's a bit strong. Yes I do regularly update my supported (Oracle) systems, but I've never had problems with my own build Solaris Express systems. I waste far more time on (now luckily legacy) fully supported Solaris 10 boxes! -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] weird bug with Seagate 3TB USB3 drive
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:17:55PM -0400, John D Groenveld wrote: Under both Solaris 10 and Solaris 11x, I receive the evil message: | I/O request is not aligned with 4096 disk sector size. | It is handled through Read Modify Write but the performance is very low. I got similar with 4k sector 'disks' (as a comstar target with blk=4096) when trying to use them to force a pool to ashift=12. The labels are found at the wrong offset when the block numbers change, and maybe the GPT label has issues too. -- Dan. pgp36Oq3osVOg.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn The silent corruption (of zfs) does not occur due to simple reason that flushing all of the block writes are acknowledged by the disks and then a new transaction occurs to start the next transaction group. The previous transaction is not closed until the next transaction has been successfully started by writing the previous TXG group record to disk. Given properly working hardware, the worst case scenario is losing the whole transaction group and no corruption occurs. Loss of data as seen by the client can definitely occur. Tomas is right on this point - If you have a ZFS NFS server running with sync disabled, and the ZFS server reboots ungracefully and starts serving NFS again without the NFS clients dismounting/remounting, then ZFS hasn't been corrupted but NFS has. Exactly the way Tomas said. The server has lost its mind and gone back into the past, but the clients remember their state (which is/was in the future) and after the server comes up again in the past, the clients will simply assume the server hasn't lost its mind and continue as if nothing went wrong, which is precisely the wrong thing to do. This is why, somewhere higher up in this thread, I said, if you have a NFS server running with sync disabled, you need to ensure NFS services don't automatically start at boot time. If your server crashes ungracefully, you need to crash your clients too (NFS dismount/remount). Personally, this is how I operate the systems I support. Because running with sync disabled is so DARN fast, and a server crash is so DARN rare, I feel the extra productivity for 500 days in a row outweigh the productivity loss that occurs on that one fateful day, when I have to reboot or dismount/remount all kinds of crap around the office. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] weird bug with Seagate 3TB USB3 drive
On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:41, Daniel Carosone wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:17:55PM -0400, John D Groenveld wrote: Under both Solaris 10 and Solaris 11x, I receive the evil message: | I/O request is not aligned with 4096 disk sector size. | It is handled through Read Modify Write but the performance is very low. I got similar with 4k sector 'disks' (as a comstar target with blk=4096) when trying to use them to force a pool to ashift=12. The labels are found at the wrong offset when the block numbers change, and maybe the GPT label has issues too. Anyone know if Solaris 11 has better support for detecting the native block size of the underlying storage? PSARC 2008/769 (Multiple disk sector size support) was committed in OpenSolaris in commit revision 9889:68d0fe4c716e. It appears ZFS makes use of the check when opening a vdev: http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/vdev_disk.c#287 Has anyone had a chance to play with S11 to confirm? We're only going to get more and more Advanced Format drives, never mind all the SAN storage units out there as well (and VMFS often on top of that too). ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD
2011/11/11 Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com On 11/11/11 02:42 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-bounces@**opensolaris.orgzfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org[mailto: zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of darkblue 1 * XEON 5606 1 * supermirco X8DT3-LN4F 6 * 4G RECC RAM 22 * WD RE3 1T harddisk 4 * intel 320 (160G) SSD 1 * supermicro 846E1-900B chassis I just want to say, this isn't supported hardware, and although many people will say they do this without problem, I've heard just as many people (including myself) saying it's unstable that way. I've never had issues with Supermicro boards. I'm using a similar model and everything on the board is supported. I recommend buying either the oracle hardware or the nexenta on whatever they recommend for hardware. Definitely DO NOT run the free version of solaris without updates and expect it to be reliable. That's a bit strong. Yes I do regularly update my supported (Oracle) systems, but I've never had problems with my own build Solaris Express systems. I waste far more time on (now luckily legacy) fully supported Solaris 10 boxes! what does it mean? I am going to install solaris 10 u10 on this server.it that any problem about compatible? and which version of solaris or solaris derived do you suggest to build storage with the above hardware. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
