Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
8 hot swap bays is not too much. The rest looks like a cake walk for OSol. But with this HW you can't go for 2009.06 anyhow, as ICH-10 won't be recognized. (I tried this on x58) I have a 2U enclosure as well (12-bay), but I'd opt for at least 3U next time, as there are too many restrictions for LP add-in cards, let alone bays, bays, bays... Tonmaus -- 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] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
hello if you want to compair it against openfiler, i would suggest not to use opensolaris itself (too much desktop stuff) but a more server like opensolaris distribution like eon (minimal opensolaris + napp-it) or nexentastor community edition (free version of their commercial storage server based on osol build 134 with web-gui) or free nexenta (core) edition with my free napp-it web-gui. they support all the new stuff (dedup, zfs3, comstar, crossbow etc) and they should work with your hardware. gea -- 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] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
I would be really interested how you got past this http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=11371 which I was so badly bitten by that I considered giving up on OpenSolaris. I don't get random hangs in normal use; so I haven't done anything to get past this. I DO get hangs when funny stuff goes on, which may well be related to that problem (at least they require a reboot). Hmmm; I get hangs sometimes when trying to send a full replication stream to an external backup drive, and I have to reboot to recover from them. I can live with this, in the short term. But now I'm feeling hopeful that they're fixed in what I'm likely to be upgrading to next. That sounds that the only difference probably was the amount of data transferred on your and my system. We are working with media files here, each multiple Gigabytes, hence the varying mileage, I assume. FW 2010.x is concerned, my expectations are from past experience with last release. I test 2010 maybe even more rigidly before I will jump to it. Technical stability as you put it before, is basically the same for Dev and Release builds both from phenomenon and consequence perspective in a OpenSolaris environment. Regards, Tonmaus -- 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] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
On 15/04/10 06:29 PM, Günther wrote: hello if you want to compair it against openfiler, i would suggest not to use opensolaris itself (too much desktop stuff) but a more server like opensolaris distribution like eon (minimal opensolaris + napp-it) or nexentastor community edition (free version of their commercial storage server based on osol build 134 with web-gui) or free nexenta (core) edition with my free napp-it web-gui. I am amazed that you believe OpenSolaris binary distro has too much desktop stuff. Most people I have come across are firmly of the belief that it does not have enough. You do know about pkg uninstall, don't you? And turning off services that you don't need? And that the bare metal system installed from the liveCD/liveUSB stick is bereft of those desktop apps you appear to disparage ? What is your *actual* problem with OpenSolaris binary distro as a base for a NAS system? James C. McPherson -- Senior Software Engineer, Solaris Oracle http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
gea wrote: if you want to compair it against openfiler, i would suggest not to use opensolaris itself (too much desktop stuff) but a more server like opensolaris distribution like eon (minimal opensolaris + napp-it) or nexentastor community edition (free version of their commercial storage server based on osol build 134 with web-gui) or free nexenta (core) edition with my free napp-it web-gui. I am amazed that you believe OpenSolaris binary distro has too much desktop stuff. Most people I have come across are firmly of the belief that it does not have enough. You do know about pkg uninstall, don't you? And turning off services that you don't need? And that the bare metal system installed from the liveCD/liveUSB stick is bereft of those desktop apps you appear to disparage ? What is your *actual* problem with OpenSolaris binary distro as a base for a NAS system? James C. McPherson -- Senior Software Engineer, Solaris Oracle http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog hello james i suppose it`s a matter of me. so let me tell the whole story. i come from the mac/ windows world with less unix and no solaris knowledge, working at a university of design in germany - but experienced with computer since the old cp/m 8bit days. two years ago, when apple announced to adopt zfs i took a deeper look at zfs (+ opensolaris). i was very impressed about the features of zfs and i decided to switch our ad-windows smb file- and webserver to machines with zfs asap. (hoped it would be on a mac) i installed opensolaris and my first impression was very disappointing. the gui was slow and not very intuitive and the only thing thats's running fine was the browser. i then was looking how to install the needed things for a ad-cifs server and a lamp server. some hours/ days/ weeks later whith the help of google i investigated what sunXX whatever package is needed or not needed - to discover ad integration is a hell with unix mappings, nobody knowing how to do it in a simply running manner - each howto more complicated than the other. it took me days to see, its just simple, do it the minimalst way by assigning just domain-admin to root and do all the rest from my windows machine. or other example is acl integration. if you want to use the beast just to replace a windows server, you have to go the hard way to understand the concept behind quite deeply. google was no help. it seems nobody is using it just as a simple mac/ windows server replacement - each howto much more complicated than the other. i decided NOT to use opensolaris due to lack of usability. it's not funny to handle it from a mac/ windows user view. my job is running a computer center with user, storage, video and multimedia, network-administration, server and services in mind - not low level os administration. i´ve got stomach ache when things that should be just simple are so complicated. i then discovered nexentastor. that seems to be the solution - a stripped down installation to those things i was really needing: zfs, smb-server, webserver, iscsi + nfs server. i installed it, start the web-gui and to say it with a ad-word from apple: there is no step three everything was just running - (not working to be honest). but up to then i had learned to handle the un-needed complicated things like user-mappings and chaotic acls and storage-defaults to have it function much like a simple smb or nas-server. not beeing satisfied with the nexentastor gui, wanting to have newer features from current opensolaris builds or to install other applications, preferring open software, i tried free nexenta (core) and eon, a stripped down opensolaris. and i have to say: thats the way i could live with. vs opensolaris: after installing nexenta in a few minutes, its just a running zfs server. thats much more easier than opensolaris. there you must install these server things AND you must deinstall/ deactivate not needed things. for a server i only need a (missing) remote management capabilities not a full featured gui. if opensolaris will be simple, not as simple as a mac server - but simple enough, i would be the first to use. beiing inspirated from thinks like openfiler i began to write my own web-gui named napp-it to handle those things, i will need, together with a how to make a zfs server just running for simple needs and for non unix/ opensolaris people. for this i use nexenta or eon as base system, although it would run on opensolaris without change as well - but i do not need more than those things that are included in a minimal installation + some things that are also not in a fresh opensolaris installation. if someone will try it -its free. i write these things to you because it may help to improve opensolaris and zfs technologie in a way it become more usable for the rest of us. - people like me who are saying, a intelligent person must be able to handle it not beeing a certified cisco/ oracle/ microsoft/ sun or whatever engineer. zfs
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
Thanks for the tips, I tried EON, but it is too minimalistic, I plan to use this server for other (monitoring server and etc.) Nexenta is a strange hybrid, and use the not commercial version, without its ability, i don't know... A napp-it i'll try for sure -- 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] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
hello dr245 free nexentastor community edition = commercial edition without support, without additions like high availability or vmware/ xen management and limited to 12 tb nexenta (core) is just the same system (opensolaris b134+ kernel with unix tools and handling, software will be the same than ubuntu server - some time) without the gui and additions of nexentastor. but nexenta (core) is more open and usable for other things like database and webserver, free and open without any restrictions and not so minimalistic than eon. - i switched our server (fileserver, webserver and nfs - esxi storage to nexenta (mainly core but we have also nexentastor) . napp-it is a software i wrote to manage our nexentas as simple as possible - add functions when i need them. gea gea -- 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] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
jcm == James C McPherson james.mcpher...@oracle.com writes: ga == Günther Alka a...@hfg-gmuend.de writes: jcm I am amazed that you believe OpenSolaris binary distro has too jcm much desktop stuff. Most people I have come across are firmly jcm of the belief that it does not have enough. minification is stupid, anyway. It causes way more harm than good. I can understand not wanting to have weird flavour-of-the-month daemons running until you've been bothered to learn what they do, but not wanting to have their binaries on the disk is just silly. It's also annoying when some sysadmin minifies away xauth so that 'ssh -Y' doesn't work, or minifies away vi because he uses nano---his OCD becomes unreasonable biggotry taking the place of building a workable consensus platform, which is the proper task at hand when deciding what to include and how to present it. But it gets much worse when the minifiers start reaching into the packages themselves and turning off options. Ex., they will turn off the Perl/Python scripting support for some common package because they want to yank out Perl and Python to make the distribution smaller. Or they do not want to ship libX11.so, so they'll rebuild packages with X support switched off. Once they've done that, if you actually need those things, it will waste heaps more time to track down what went wrong. The existence of the knobs themselves is harmful enough, but the popular demand of idiots for this kind of knob wastes the time of the non-idiot packagers expected to provide it: they have to split the result of a single build into twenty tiny interdependent subpackages, shim dlopen() in there where it wasn't before (if it's a binary package system), and then go back and test the whole monster: wherever they drop the ball, you suffer, and while they're tossing the ball around they're spending time pandering to the damned minifiers instead of making and updating other packages which are actually useful to sane people. The insanity gets pushed further when whole packages start factoring core pieces of functionality into ``modules'', so now in Eye of Gnome, I have the ``double click on a picture to make it bigger Module.so''. I guess, if I want to make my system smaller, I can use the packaging system to remove the ability to double click on pictures and make them bigger? What the fuck? The minification fetish has spread out both directions from the packaging system and infected everything from the architecture of the source code to the user-visible menu structure of the app! Minification zealotry should stick to systems running from NOR flash like openwrt, or 1GB NAND systems like android. It's got no place on a system with disks. As a corrolary, any minification based on busting a binary into .so's and then scattering the .so's into packages is stupid, because the package systems where minification makes sense are source-based and don't need that, in fact suffer from it because the split binaries contain more symbols and are larger in core and larger on disk. Just say no to minification if you're doing it because it ``feels'' right. Just knock it off. Go work on your car stereo, or develop perverted rituals with your espresso machine, instead. ga i installed opensolaris and my first impression was very ga disappointing. yeah. me, too: my first impression was ``the installer does not work at all without X11. oh, and BTW X11 does not work at all without nVidia haha, ENJOY.'' That was at least two years ago though. ga the gui was slow and not very intuitive and the only thing ga thats's running fine was the browser. wtf, mate? You complain the install is not minimal, but then you judge the overall system by the superficial impression its GUI makes? ga if someone will try it -its free. Is it? I don't really understand the nexenta license, which is why I don't bother with it. The opensolaris licensing is already confusing because parts of it are binary, and 'pkg' makes it very easy to install things with non-redistributable licenses, or extremely weird things like SunPro compilers that claim to have different licenses depending on what you use them for or how you define yourself as a person and include automatic agreements not to publish unfavorable benchmarks and other similar bullshit. It's admirable, important, and surprising to me that Solaris has actually managed to become a redistributable livecd with a modern package system (yeah, and where's your darwin livecd, fanboy?), but still because of the ecosystem opensolaris comes from you're constantly one enter key away from encumbering your system. If you want it to be free maybe use freebsd---then you still get ZFS but you get away from some of the lazy assertions, most of the binary disk drivers and mid-layers, and from the stupid legacy disk-labeling. FreeBSD also has a scripted build process all the way from source tree to .iso that you can run yourself.
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
free nexentastor community edition = commercial edition without support, You are opened my eyes :) start to download, tomorrow will look -- 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] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
Is it? I don't really understand the nexenta license, which is why I don't bother with it. In the simplest terms, NCP (nexenta.org) = Free as in speech/beer NexentaStor Community Edition (nexentastor.org) = Free as in beer - NCP underneath + closed WebGUI + FOSS plugins NexentaStor enterprise edtion (nexenta.com) = Costs $$ - NCP underneath + closed UI + enterprise plugins ($$) ~Anil ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS? I plann NAS zfs + CIFS,iSCSI Thanks -- 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] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
safe to say: 2009.06 (b111) is unusable for the purpose, ans CIFS is dead in this build. I am using B133, but I am not sure if this is best choice. I'd like to hear from others as well. -Tonmaus -- 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] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
On Wed, April 14, 2010 08:52, Tonmaus wrote: safe to say: 2009.06 (b111) is unusable for the purpose, ans CIFS is dead in this build. That's strange; I run it every day (my home Windows My Documents folder and all my photos are on 2009.06). -bash-3.2$ cat /etc/release OpenSolaris 2009.06 snv_111b X86 Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 07 May 2009 I am using B133, but I am not sure if this is best choice. I'd like to hear from others as well. Well, it's technically not a stable build. I'm holding off to see what 2010.$Spring ends up being; I'll convert to that unless it turns into a disaster. Is it possible to switch to b132 now, for example? I don't think the old builds are available after the next one comes out; I haven't been able to find them. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
On Wed, April 14, 2010 11:51, Tonmaus wrote: On Wed, April 14, 2010 08:52, Tonmaus wrote: safe to say: 2009.06 (b111) is unusable for the purpose, ans CIFS is dead in this build. That's strange; I run it every day (my home Windows My Documents folder and all my photos are on 2009.06). -bash-3.2$ cat /etc/release OpenSolaris 2009.06 snv_111b X86 Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 07 May 2009 I would be really interested how you got past this http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=11371 which I was so badly bitten by that I considered giving up on OpenSolaris. I don't get random hangs in normal use; so I haven't done anything to get past this. I DO get hangs when funny stuff goes on, which may well be related to that problem (at least they require a reboot). Hmmm; I get hangs sometimes when trying to send a full replication stream to an external backup drive, and I have to reboot to recover from them. I can live with this, in the short term. But now I'm feeling hopeful that they're fixed in what I'm likely to be upgrading to next. not sure if this is best choice. I'd like to hear from others as well. Well, it's technically not a stable build. I'm holding off to see what 2010.$Spring ends up being; I'll convert to that unless it turns into a disaster. Is it possible to switch to b132 now, for example? I don't think the old builds are available after the next one comes out; I haven't been able to find them. There are methods to upgrade to any dev build by pkg. Can't tell you from the top of my head, but I have done it with success. I wouldn't know why to go to 132 instead of 133, though. 129 seems to be an option. Because 132 was the most current last time I paid much attention :-). As I say, I'm currently holding out for 2010.$Spring, but knowing how to get to a particular build via package would be potentially interesting for the future still. Having been told it's possible helps, makes it worth looking harder. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Dmitry dr...@hotbox.ru wrote: Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS? I plann NAS zfs + CIFS,iSCSI I'm using b133. My current box was installed with 118, upgraded to 128a, then 133. I'm avoiding b134 due to changes in the CIFS service that affect ACLs. http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6706181 For any new installation, I would suggest b134, or wait for the 10.spring release, which should be based on b134 or b135. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
dd == David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net writes: dd Is it possible to switch to b132 now, for example? yeah, this is not so bad. I know of two approaches: * genunix.org assembles livecd's of each bnnn tag. You can burn one, unplug from the internet, install it. It is nice to have a livecd capable of mounting whatever zpool and zfs version you are using. I'm not sure how they do this, but they do it. * see these untested but relatively safe-looking instructions (apolo to whoever posted that i didn't write down the credit): formal IPS docs: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/docs/content/2009.06/IMGPACKAGESYS/index.html how to get a specific snv build with ips -8- Starting from OpenSolaris 2009.06 (snv_111b) active BE. 1) beadm create snv_111b-dev 2) beadm activate snv_111b-dev 3) reboot 4) pkg set-authority -O http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev opensolaris.org 5) pkg install SUNWipkg 6) pkg list 'entire*' 7) beadm create snv_118 8) beadm mount snv_118 /mnt 9) pkg -R /mnt refresh 10) pkg -R /mnt install ent...@0.5.11-0.118 11) bootadm update-archive -R /mnt 12) beadm umount snv_118 13) beadm activate snv_118 14) reboot Now you have a snv_118 development environment. also see: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3436 which currently says about the same thing. -8- you see the bnnn is specified in line 10, ent...@0.5.11-0.nnn There is no ``failsafe'' boot archive with opensolaris like the ramdisk-based one that was in the now-terminated SXCE, so you should make a failsafe boot option yourself by cloning a working BE and leaving that clone alone. and...make the failsafe clone new enough to understand your pool version or else it's not very useful. :) pgpxowC3Fu66n.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
On Wed, April 14, 2010 15:28, Miles Nordin wrote: dd == David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net writes: dd Is it possible to switch to b132 now, for example? yeah, this is not so bad. I know of two approaches: Thanks, I've filed and flagged this for reference. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
On Wed, Apr 14 at 13:16, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: I don't get random hangs in normal use; so I haven't done anything to get past this. Interesting. Win7-64 clients were locking up our 2009.06 server within seconds while performing common operations like searching and copying large directory trees. Luckilly I could still rollback to 101b which worked fine (except for a CIFS bug because of its age), and my roll-forward to b130 was successful as well. We now have our primary on b130 and our slave server on b134, with no stability issues in either one. I DO get hangs when funny stuff goes on, which may well be related to that problem (at least they require a reboot). Hmmm; I get hangs sometimes when trying to send a full replication stream to an external backup drive, and I have to reboot to recover from them. I can live with this, in the short term. But now I'm feeling hopeful that they're fixed in what I'm likely to be upgrading to next. Yes, hopefully. --eric -- Eric D. Mudama edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
On 04/15/10 06:16 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Because 132 was the most current last time I paid much attention :-). As I say, I'm currently holding out for 2010.$Spring, but knowing how to get to a particular build via package would be potentially interesting for the future still. I hope it's 2010.$Autumn, I don't fancy waiting until October. Hint: the southern hemisphere does exist! As to which build is more stable, that depends what you want to do with it. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
On 14-Apr-10 22:44, Ian Collins wrote: On 04/15/10 06:16 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Because 132 was the most current last time I paid much attention :-). As I say, I'm currently holding out for 2010.$Spring, but knowing how to get to a particular build via package would be potentially interesting for the future still. I hope it's 2010.$Autumn, I don't fancy waiting until October. Hint: the southern hemisphere does exist! I've even been there. But the month/season relationship is too deeply built into too many things I follow (like the Christmas books come out of the publisher's fall list; for that matter, like that Christmas is in the winter) to go away at all easily. California doesn't have seasons anyway. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On 14-Apr-10 22:44, Ian Collins wrote: Hint: the southern hemisphere does exist! I've even been there. But the month/season relationship is too deeply built into too many things I follow (like the Christmas books come out of the publisher's fall list; for that matter, like that Christmas is in the winter) to go away at all easily. California doesn't have seasons anyway. Yes we do: Wet Season and Dry Season (if you're in the Bay Area) or Dry Season and Burn-Baby-Burn Season (if you live in LA or thereabouts). wink Oops. Forgot San Francisco: Fog Season and well... Ummm... Fog Season. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?
Yesterday I received a victim. SuperServer 5026T-3RF 19 2U, Intel X58, 1xCPU LGA1366 8xSAS/SATA hot-swap drive bays, 8 ports SAS LSI 1068E, 6 ports SATA-II Intel ICH10R, 2xGigabit Ethernet and i have 2 ways Openfiler vs Opensolaris :) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
