Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Richard Elling - PAE schrieb: Where most people get confused is the expectation that a hot-plug device works like a hot-swap device. Well, seems like you should also inform your documentation team about this definition: http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardware/docs/html/819-3722-15/index.html#21924 SATA hot plug is supported only for the Windows XP Operating System (OS). Daniel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Dale Ghent wrote: On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris problems with my machine's MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You're unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software. Yeah, Solaris x86 is so bleeding edge that it doesn't even support Sun's own hardware! (x2100 SATA, which is now already in its second generation) You know, I'm really perplexed over that, especially given that the silicon image chips (AFAIK) aren't in any Sun product and yet they have a SATA framework driver. The realities of the hardware world strike again. Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation details from their competitors. If you want NVidia drivers for Solaris, then please let NVidia know. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On October 17, 2006 10:59:51 AM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dale Ghent wrote: On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris problems with my machine's MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You're unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software. Yeah, Solaris x86 is so bleeding edge that it doesn't even support Sun's own hardware! (x2100 SATA, which is now already in its second generation) You know, I'm really perplexed over that, especially given that the silicon image chips (AFAIK) aren't in any Sun product and yet they have a SATA framework driver. The realities of the hardware world strike again. Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation details from their competitors. If you want NVidia drivers for Solaris, then please let NVidia know. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as working. http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml We are not talking about a 3rd party add-on card, and we are not even talking about reselling of 3rd party products. Sun badges this as their own and should support it without customers having to (fruitlessly) ask the OEM to write a driver. I didn't pay good money to Sun to have to then turn around and ask another party for support. BTW, my point about the x2100 was not actually about SATA support, it was really that Solaris x86 is not bleeding edge, and this hardware is not bleeding edge. Rather, Solaris x86 simply has poor hardware support. When it doesn't support Sun's own hardware, now in its SECOND generation, it seems difficult to claim otherwise. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Frank Cusack wrote: On October 17, 2006 10:59:51 AM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The realities of the hardware world strike again. Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation details from their competitors. If you want NVidia drivers for Solaris, then please let NVidia know. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as working. http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml What is your definition of work? NVidia MCPs work with SATA drives in IDE emulation mode under Solaris (thus I am able to compose this message on an NForce 410) We are not talking about a 3rd party add-on card, and we are not even talking about reselling of 3rd party products. Sun badges this as their own and should support it without customers having to (fruitlessly) ask the OEM to write a driver. I didn't pay good money to Sun to have to then turn around and ask another party for support. BTW, my point about the x2100 was not actually about SATA support, it was really that Solaris x86 is not bleeding edge, and this hardware is not bleeding edge. Rather, Solaris x86 simply has poor hardware support. When it doesn't support Sun's own hardware, now in its SECOND generation, it seems difficult to claim otherwise. I think we can all agree that more hardware, drivers, and features would be a good thing. But the reality is that everything changes continuously. The merry-go-round never stops, so sometimes you have to jump on. Incidentally, contrary to your assertions, (Dell|HP|Lenovo) doesn't write NVidia drivers for MS-Windows either. Similarly, for Linux on the X2100, you can download the NVidia drivers directly from NVidia or via http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/downloads.jsp -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Richard Elling - PAE schrieb: Frank Cusack wrote: I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as working. http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml What is your definition of work? NVidia MCPs work with SATA drives in IDE emulation mode under Solaris (thus I am able to compose this message on an NForce 410) Quoted from the web page above: Internal disk Up to two hot-pluggable 3.5 inch SATA or SATA II, 250 GB or 500 GB 7200 RPM disks supported. hot-pluggable - you will find out only in a footnote (not on this specs page) that this is only supported with MS Windows. http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/os.jsp Still no mention of hot-pluggable not supported by Solaris. Maybe here http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/datasheet.pdf ... nope. Perhaps in the FAQ http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/faq.jsp ... hmm, no again. Hopefully in the product notes http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardware/docs/html/819-6594-11/ ... no again. I still haven't found the document which states that hot-plugging of disks is not supported by Solaris. So one can normally assume that advertized hot-plugging of a Sun hardware is also supported on a Sun operating system - better not. Daniel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On October 17, 2006 12:59:26 PM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Cusack wrote: On October 17, 2006 10:59:51 AM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The realities of the hardware world strike again. Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation details from their competitors. If you want NVidia drivers for Solaris, then please let NVidia know. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as working. http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml What is your definition of work? The same as Sun's. Quoting from the URL mentioned above: Up to two hot-pluggable 3.5 inch SATA or SATA II, 250 GB or 500 GB 7200 RPM disks supported. There are no caveats or notes attached to that claim. BTW, there is still the IMPI vs IPMI typo on that page, if anyone is listening. I think we can all agree that more hardware, drivers, and features would be a good thing. yup. No argument, there will always be some new hardware that your favorite OS does not support or does not support completely, or that has bugs (either hardware or software) which frustrate you even when said hardware does work. But the reality is that everything changes continuously. The merry-go-round never stops, so sometimes you have to jump on. Of course. But I'm not talking about the latest and greatest barely off the production line hardware. For example, I've had a devil of a time trying to get the LSI 3442-E working on Solaris SPARC (works on x86 with LSI driver). Sun's driver supports the controller, but not completely (mostly because IMHO SAS support is immature, not because of hardware issues). Even though Sun has this exact same hardware as on onboard controller, I am not upset at Sun for not supporting the plugin PCI card version as well as they should. I am talking about hardware that is in its second generation that Sun does not support correctly, and which it advertises support for. I made a buying decision based on Sun's advertisement of support (as did others). I am talking about hardware which Sun should, by all rights, support. Incidentally, contrary to your assertions, (Dell|HP|Lenovo) doesn't write NVidia drivers for MS-Windows either. Contrary to which assertions? I never claimed anything about how NVidia hardware is or is not supported. My only claim is that *Sun* needs to put support for the SATA controller in Solaris, and *I* shouldn't have to beg the OEM vendor (which Sun doesn't even tell you who it is) to write a driver. I don't really care if that support comes from NVidia (like it does for the gfx cards) or directly from Sun, as long as it is Sun that does the arm twisting. Similarly, for Linux on the X2100, you can download the NVidia drivers directly from NVidia or via http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/downloads.jsp Which, I think, makes my point about Solaris and poor hardware support. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Ah, more terminology below... Daniel Rock wrote: Richard Elling - PAE schrieb: Frank Cusack wrote: I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as working. http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml What is your definition of work? NVidia MCPs work with SATA drives in IDE emulation mode under Solaris (thus I am able to compose this message on an NForce 410) Quoted from the web page above: Internal disk Up to two hot-pluggable 3.5 inch SATA or SATA II, 250 GB or 500 GB 7200 RPM disks supported. hot-pluggable - you will find out only in a footnote (not on this specs page) that this is only supported with MS Windows. http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/os.jsp Still no mention of hot-pluggable not supported by Solaris. Maybe here http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/datasheet.pdf ... nope. Perhaps in the FAQ http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/faq.jsp ... hmm, no again. Hopefully in the product notes http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardware/docs/html/819-6594-11/ ... no again. I still haven't found the document which states that hot-plugging of disks is not supported by Solaris. The operational definition of hot pluggable is: The ability to add or remove a system component while the system remains powered up, and without inducing any hardware errors. This does not imply anything about whether the component is automatically integrated into or detached from some higher level environment for use, nor that such an environment is necessarily suspended during the operation (although it may be.) For example, a hot pluggable processor/memory card may be added to a system without the need to power the chassis down and then back up. However, that does not mean it will be automatically utilized by the operating system using that chassis. So one can normally assume that advertized hot-plugging of a Sun hardware is also supported on a Sun operating system - better not. All SATA drives are hot-pluggable. There is no software component pertaining to hot-pluggable, so there is indeed an error on the page describing hot-pluggable as being a Windows-only feature. Perhaps you are looking for hot-swappable for which the operational definition is: The ability of a component to be added or removed from a system without interrupting the normal operation of the system. For Solaris, a device may be hot-swapped if there is nothing open on the device. Here lies the entrance of a rathole... -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
CAVEAT: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Richard Elling - PAE wrote: All SATA drives are hot-pluggable. The caveat here is that some enclosures will cause a shutdown when opened to access the drives. The drives themselves are hot-pluggable, but access may not possible without a shutdown. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Richard Elling - PAE schrieb: The operational definition of hot pluggable is: The ability to add or remove a system component while the system remains powered up, and without inducing any hardware errors. This does not imply anything about whether the component is automatically integrated into or detached from some higher level environment for use, nor that such an environment is necessarily suspended during the operation (although it may be.) For example, a hot pluggable processor/memory card may be added to a system without the need to power the chassis down and then back up. However, that does not mean it will be automatically utilized by the operating system using that chassis. Poor excuse ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On October 17, 2006 1:45:45 PM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, more terminology below... Daniel Rock wrote: I still haven't found the document which states that hot-plugging of disks is not supported by Solaris. The operational definition of hot pluggable is: The ability to add or remove a system component while the system remains powered up, and without inducing any hardware errors. This does not imply anything about whether the component is automatically integrated into or detached from some higher level environment for use, nor that such an environment is necessarily suspended during the operation (although it may be.) For example, a hot pluggable processor/memory card may be added to a system without the need to power the chassis down and then back up. However, that does not mean it will be automatically utilized by the operating system using that chassis. So one can normally assume that advertized hot-plugging of a Sun hardware is also supported on a Sun operating system - better not. All SATA drives are hot-pluggable. No, not by that definition. If you start with 2 drives, remove one, it is no longer available to the system even when replaced. Similarly, if you boot with only 1 drive present, the 2nd drive will never be recognized even when hot-plugged later. There is no software component pertaining to hot-pluggable, so there I would say there is, based on your definition of hot-pluggable, since Windows supports it and Solaris doesn't. Under Solaris, a drive cannot be added. I don't mean automatically, I mean at all. is indeed an error on the page describing hot-pluggable as being a Windows-only feature. Perhaps you are looking for hot-swappable for which the operational definition is: The ability of a component to be added or removed from a system without interrupting the normal operation of the system. I hope for Sun's sake that you don't represent them in this matter. At best, you are justifying deceptive advertising. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On Oct 17, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Richard Elling - PAE wrote: The realities of the hardware world strike again. Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation details from their competitors. If you want to learn the source of mine, Frank's and undoubtedly others' ire, please refer to: http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardware/docs/html/ 819-3722-15/index.html#21924 This is the release notes of the X2100. The indication that hot-swap works under Windows (but not Linux or Solaris) seems to be an obvious indicator of it not being a hardware lacking, but a driver one (which would make sense, ata does not expect a device to go away). Further, if my memory isn't playing tricks on me, when I received my first X2100 (around a month or two after they were first released) I recall an addition small yellow paper tucked in the accessories box separately from the standard documentation saying that hot-swap under Solaris would be supported in a future Solaris version. There's also a bug open on this matter, and has been open for a long time. If this wasn't feasible, I imagine the bug would be closed already with a WONTFIX. If you want NVidia drivers for Solaris, then please let NVidia know. As an outsider, I don't want to trivialize the happenings in the Sun- nVidia relationship, but look at nge(7d) as an example. Surely if that exists (closed source, and I assume it's provided by nVidia in part or whole and under NDA) then a NV SATA driver shouldn't be hard to obtain, even if it too ended up being closed-source (a la the Marvell driver). /dale ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
still more below... Frank Cusack wrote: On October 17, 2006 1:45:45 PM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, more terminology below... Daniel Rock wrote: I still haven't found the document which states that hot-plugging of disks is not supported by Solaris. The operational definition of hot pluggable is: The ability to add or remove a system component while the system remains powered up, and without inducing any hardware errors. This does not imply anything about whether the component is automatically integrated into or detached from some higher level environment for use, nor that such an environment is necessarily suspended during the operation (although it may be.) For example, a hot pluggable processor/memory card may be added to a system without the need to power the chassis down and then back up. However, that does not mean it will be automatically utilized by the operating system using that chassis. So one can normally assume that advertized hot-plugging of a Sun hardware is also supported on a Sun operating system - better not. All SATA drives are hot-pluggable. No, not by that definition. If you start with 2 drives, remove one, it is no longer available to the system even when replaced. Similarly, if you boot with only 1 drive present, the 2nd drive will never be recognized even when hot-plugged later. Disagree. We have been providing hot swap and hot plug computer systems for many years. For the most part, the documentation follows the definitions I've provided. There is no software component pertaining to hot-pluggable, so there I would say there is, based on your definition of hot-pluggable, since Windows supports it and Solaris doesn't. Under Solaris, a drive cannot be added. I don't mean automatically, I mean at all. I think I confused you here. See below. is indeed an error on the page describing hot-pluggable as being a Windows-only feature. Perhaps you are looking for hot-swappable for which the operational definition is: The ability of a component to be added or removed from a system without interrupting the normal operation of the system. I hope for Sun's sake that you don't represent them in this matter. At best, you are justifying deceptive advertising. Typically, the hot-swap components are: + power supplies + fans Typically, the hot-plug components are: + CPU/memory boards + disks Where most people get confused is the expectation that a hot-plug device works like a hot-swap device. Sometimes they do, sometimes they require an interruption. Back to the NVidia comments, NVidia implements NVraid on the controllers used for the X2100 and X2200. There is a driver to interface with NVraid for Windows, but not for Solaris. For Solaris, you would disable NVraid and use the disks directly if you want to enable recovery from hot-plug events. In this case, it should work the same as a SCSI device, in as much as the device drivers support dynamic reconfiguration. I suspect that this is the source of the release notes confusion -- whoever wrote the release note does fully describe the situation in a manner consistent with other Sun products. CR 6483250 X2100 release notes inconsistent with Sun terminology, confuses customers -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 10:02:31PM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote: There's also a bug open on this matter, and has been open for a long time. If this wasn't feasible, I imagine the bug would be closed already with a WONTFIX. FYI, the ARC case for integrating the nvidia ck804/mcp55 SATA HBA driver (PSARC 2006/501) was approved relatively recently. I would expect the driver to be available in Nevada soon, but I have no further information. You should follow up with the storage-discuss alias if you want more details. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Hi Darren, The Solaris Operating System for x86 Installation Check Tool 1.1 is designed to report whether Solaris drivers are available for the devices the tool detects on a x86 system and determine quickly whether your system is likely to be able to install the Solaris OS. It is not designed to make sure that the driver fully follows a certain specification or it is bug free. The Solaris Operating System for x86 Installation Check Tool 1.1 is based on Solaris 10 Update 2 (06/06) kernel. The supported driver list also generated from s10u2. In s10u2, the MCP55 build-in NIC was not supported, so the tool reports it doesn't support. It's possible that nv_44 can detect that card, but snv is not officially released, so this Installation Check Tool won't support it. I'd like to take this chance to introduce Hardware Certification Test Suite. The Hardware Certification Test Suite (HCTS) is the application and set of test suites that you can use to test your system or component to verify that it is compatible with the Solaris OS on x86 platforms. HCTS testing enables you to certify server, desktop, and laptop systems and to certify many different types of controllers. All hardware that passes certification testing is eligible to be included in the Solaris OS Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) as a certified system or component. Please note HCTS certifies hardware, but not drivers. If you are interest in this suite, go to http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/index.html and have a try. Best regards, Ni, Zhiqi Original Message Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:24:50 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by Solaris. One such tool can be found at: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html Beware of this tool. It reports "Y" for both 32-bit and 64-bit on the nVidia MCP55 SATA controller -- but in the real world, it's supported only in compatibility mode, and (fatal flaw for me) *it doesn't support hot-swap with this controller*. So apparently even a clean result from this utility isn't a safe indication that the device is fully supported. Also, it says that the nVidia MCP55 ethernet is NOT supported in either 32 or 64 bit, but actually nv_44 found the ethernet without any trouble. Maybe that's just that the support was extended recently; the install tool is based on S10 6/06. Driver support for Solaris Nevada is not the same as Solaris 10 Update 2, so it is not surprising to see these discrepencies. In some cases, getting Solaris to support a piece of hardware is as simple as running the update_drv command to tell it about a new PCI id (these change often and are central to driver support on all x86 platforms.) The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as a minefield. I've found this to be true for almost all open source platforms where you're trying to use something that hasn't been explicitly used and tested by the developers. Darren ___ 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] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:36:28PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as a minefield. I've found this to be true for almost all open source platforms where you're trying to use something that hasn't been explicitly used and tested by the developers. I've been running Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, I think it was, and have had amazingly little trouble. Whereas I'm now sitting on $2k of hardware that won't do what I wanted it to do under Solaris, so it's a bit of a hot-button issue for me right now. I've never had to consider Linux issues in selecting hardware (in fact I haven't selected hardware, my linux boxes have all been castoffs originally purchased to run Windowsx) Perhaps that's true of most Linux development machines too :) Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere pgpJujKrQNL0n.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So are there any pci-e SATA cards that are supported ? I was hoping to go with a sempron64. Using old-pci seems like a waste. I recently built a am2 sempron64 based zfs box. motherboard: ASUS M2NPV-MX cpu: amd am2 sempron64 2800+ The motherboard has 2 ide ports and 4 sata ports provided by nvidia mcp51. The ide and sata ports work in compatability mode. The onboard nge ethernet works. The motherboard has builtin geforce based video but I havent tested this. Im using 2 ide disks for mirrored boot/root and a 4 disk raidz on the sata ports. It has been running snv_47 for the last couple of weeks with no problems. Paul ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On 11/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dick Davies wrote: On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. I tried that myself - there really isn't very much on there. I can't believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know most of my kit isn't on there), so I assume it isn't updated that much... There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by Solaris. One such tool can be found at: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html That doesn't help with buying hardware though - I'm quite happy to buy hardware specifically for an OS (like I've always done for my BSD boxes and linux) but it's annoying to be forced to do trial and error . There is a process for submitting input back to Sun on driver testing I thought so (had that experience trying to get a variant of iprb added to device_aliases) and I can understand why, but an overly conservative HCL just feeds the 'Solaris supports hardly any hardware' argument against adoption. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Yeah, I looked at the tool. Unfortunately it doesnt help at all with choosing what to buy.On 10/12/06, Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On 11/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dick Davies wrote: On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. I tried that myself - there really isn't very much on there. I can't believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know most of my kit isn't on there), so I assume it isn't updated that much... There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by Solaris. One such tool can be found at: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html That doesn't help with buying hardware though -I'm quite happy to buy hardware specifically for an OS(like I've always done for my BSD boxes and linux) but it'sannoying to be forced to do trial and error . There is a process for submitting input back to Sun on driver testingI thought so (had that experience trying to get a variant of iprb addedto device_aliases) and I can understand why, but an overly conservative HCL just feeds the 'Solaris supports hardly any hardware' argument againstadoption.--Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nunshttp://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___zfs-discuss mailing listzfs-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] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Followup - if you also want to also use the machine as a workstation: Graphics card (PCI Express): Pick a Nvidia based board to take advantage fo the excellent Solaris native driver[0]. The 7600GS has a great price/performance ratio. This ref [1] also mentions the 7600GT - altough I'm (almost) sure you won't be interested in volt modding them. [0] http://www.nvidia.com/object/solaris_display_1.0-8774.html [1] http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce7600gs-voltmodding.html Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On Oct 11, 2006, at 10:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So are there any pci-e SATA cards that are supported ? I was hoping to go with a sempron64. Using old-pci seems like a waste. Yes. I wrote up a little review of the SIIG SC-SAE412-S1 card which is a two port PCIe card based on the Silicon Image 3132 chip: http://elektronkind.org/2006/09/siig-esata-ii-pcie-card-and-opensolaris The card is a two port eSATA2 card, but SIIG also sells a two port internal SATA card based on the same chip as well. This card is running fine under SX:CR build 47 and would presumably also run fine under Solaris 10 Update 2 or later. /dale ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by Solaris. One such tool can be found at: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html Beware of this tool. It reports Y for both 32-bit and 64-bit on the nVidia MCP55 SATA controller -- but in the real world, it's supported only in compatibility mode, and (fatal flaw for me) *it doesn't support hot-swap with this controller*. So apparently even a clean result from this utility isn't a safe indication that the device is fully supported. Also, it says that the nVidia MCP55 ethernet is NOT supported in either 32 or 64 bit, but actually nv_44 found the ethernet without any trouble. Maybe that's just that the support was extended recently; the install tool is based on S10 6/06. The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as a minefield. -- David Dyer-Bennet, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by Solaris. One such tool can be found at: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html Beware of this tool. It reports Y for both 32-bit and 64-bit on the nVidia MCP55 SATA controller -- but in the real world, it's supported only in compatibility mode, and (fatal flaw for me) *it doesn't support hot-swap with this controller*. So apparently even a clean result from this utility isn't a safe indication that the device is fully supported. Also, it says that the nVidia MCP55 ethernet is NOT supported in either 32 or 64 bit, but actually nv_44 found the ethernet without any trouble. Maybe that's just that the support was extended recently; the install tool is based on S10 6/06. Driver support for Solaris Nevada is not the same as Solaris 10 Update 2, so it is not surprising to see these discrepencies. In some cases, getting Solaris to support a piece of hardware is as simple as running the update_drv command to tell it about a new PCI id (these change often and are central to driver support on all x86 platforms.) The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as a minefield. I've found this to be true for almost all open source platforms where you're trying to use something that hasn't been explicitly used and tested by the developers. Darren ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as a minefield. I've found this to be true for almost all open source platforms where you're trying to use something that hasn't been explicitly used and tested by the developers. I've been running Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, I think it was, and have had amazingly little trouble. Whereas I'm now sitting on $2k of hardware that won't do what I wanted it to do under Solaris, so it's a bit of a hot-button issue for me right now. I've never had to consider Linux issues in selecting hardware (in fact I haven't selected hardware, my linux boxes have all been castoffs originally purchased to run Windowsx), whereas I made considerable efforts to find out what should work and how careful I had to be, including asking for advice on this list, and I have still ended up getting screwed. Yeah, I'm a little bitter about this. -- David Dyer-Bennet, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On Oct 11, 2006, at 7:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: I've been running Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, I think it was, and have had amazingly little trouble. Whereas I'm now sitting on $2k of hardware that won't do what I wanted it to do under Solaris, so it's a bit of a hot-button issue for me right now. Yes, but remember back in the days of Linux 0.99, the amount of PC hardware was nowhere near as varied as it is today. Integrated chipsets? A pipe dream! Aside from video card chips and proprietary pre-ATAPI CDROM interfaces, you didn't have to reach far to find a driver which covered a given piece of hardware because when you got down to it, most hardware was the same. NE2000, anyone? Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris problems with my machine's MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You're unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software. When in that situation, one can be patient, be helpful, or go back to where one came from. /dale ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris problems with my machine's MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You're unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software. Yeah, Solaris x86 is so bleeding edge that it doesn't even support Sun's own hardware! (x2100 SATA, which is now already in its second generation) You know, I'm really perplexed over that, especially given that the silicon image chips (AFAIK) aren't in any Sun product and yet they have a SATA framework driver. /dale ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
