On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Bill McGonigle b...@bfccomputing.comwrote:
On 11/21/2009 11:40 AM, Bruce Labitt wrote:
Bill, why not RAID-5? Isn't RAID-5 supposed to be ultra-reliable? As
in hot swap disks? Or does this just apply to software RAID-5...
-Bruce
who knows very little
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name wrote:
I think the RAID 5 write hole refers to the slowdown on writes with RAID
5. In order to lose data, a 2nd drive needs to fail (as opposed to only 1
drive on a RAID 0 or JBOD).
According to
Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com writes:
James R. Van Zandt j...@comcast.net writes:
For several years, I've been running MythTV with a Hauppauge PVR-500
dual analog tuner. However, Comcast has been moving channels from
analog to digital, and they've just sent a letter announcing
On 11/23/2009 10:31 AM, Alan Johnson wrote:
We! From all the theory I've read and watched, ZFS is the end
game. I'm still trying to figure out how to work it into cloud
storage. Does FreeNAS some how enable ZFS over iSCSI? I can't wrap my
mind around that, but the benefits of ZFS on
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu wrote:
Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com writes:
James R. Van Zandt j...@comcast.net writes:
For several years, I've been running MythTV with a Hauppauge PVR-500
dual analog tuner. However, Comcast has been moving
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Alan Johnson a...@datdec.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name wrote:
I think the RAID 5 write hole refers to the slowdown on writes with RAID
5. In order to lose data, a 2nd drive needs to fail (as opposed to only 1
drive
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Bill McGonigle b...@bfccomputing.comwrote:
I know of a computer company over in Lebanon that's selling 16 and
24-bay Nexenta-based ZFS storage servers that'll do iscsi, nfs, smb with
impressive ease. ;) OpenSolaris kernel, Ubuntu userland, block-level
dedup
I don't want to go commercial, so I won't guess the name, but are the
initials BFCC, but chance? ;-)
you'll have to check when the new website gets pushed to live. :)
A fellow on this list at the Birthday party said that iSCSI had a lot less
network overhead and much better real throughput
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Bill McGonigle b...@bfccomputing.comwrote:
yeah, NFS and databases aren't really a great mapping - not enough
semantics are supported even if they were fast enough.
But there is not a lot of meta data manipulation for DB files, mostly mtime
as I turn off atime
On 23-Nov-2009, Alan Johnson a...@datdec.com sent:
Nice! But then what does it look like to the client? Doesn't
iSCSI appear like a block device that still needs a file system
on top of it?
Correct. You get a block device that you can put any filesystem
you like on.
Does the client need ZFS
On 23-Nov-2009, Alan Johnson a...@datdec.com sent:
Nope. As I understand it, when you do an iSCSI export of a ZFS
pool, you're getting a block device with the advantages of the
ZFS storage mechanism without any particular filesystem on it.
I could be wrong, of course. I haven't played with
11 matches
Mail list logo
