On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, RaghuNath L wrote:
> > Dear Chris,
>
> EMC in our place has unix ware as os and rest is solaris and linux (with some
> winDoze also)
> go to www.platform.com for more details.
>
Yes we run LSF at our shop also...we have an AFS cell (AFS now Opensource
woowoo www.openafs
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:14:14AM -0500, Chris Colomb wrote:
> > Unixware is a product of SCO
> >
> > http://www.sco.com/unixware21/
>
> Just a FYI. Unixware is the direct lineal descendant of AT&T System V, sold
> to SCO after wending its way throug
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:14:14AM -0500, Chris Colomb wrote:
> Unixware is a product of SCO
>
> http://www.sco.com/unixware21/
Just a FYI. Unixware is the direct lineal descendant of AT&T System V, sold
to SCO after wending its way through (another) set of inept companies.
> and runs on the I
> Dear Chris,
EMC in our place has unix ware as os and rest is solaris and linux (with some
winDoze also)
go to www.platform.com for more details.
there are two server ccasesvr1 and 2
1. The EMC consists of 2 portions - a disk array component called the Symmetrix and
a file server component ca
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, RaghuNath L wrote:
> Hi Chris.
>
> UnixWare 2.1.3 (godzilla) (pts/3)
>
Unixware is a product of SCO
http://www.sco.com/unixware21/
and runs on the Intel family of processors.
> It's not just firm ware the os is present in Emc quota and other things are set
> by emc on
Hi Chris.
UnixWare 2.1.3 (godzilla) (pts/3)
It's not just firm ware the os is present in Emc quota and other things are set
by emc only, it has it's own fstab file i think.
>
> The firmware on the EMC has nothing to do with file system integrity. Its
> function is to make the Symmetrix appear a
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, RaghuNath L wrote:
> Fred i fully agree with you.
>
> But attaching 200gb drive as local to linux box is what causeing problem
> insted we use fileserver from emc which canbe used as local drive (they
> call it symmetrix) apart from os which is conncted to scsi on your ser
Fred i fully agree with you.
But attaching 200gb drive as local to linux box is what causeing problem
insted we use fileserver from emc which canbe used as local drive (they
call it symmetrix) apart from os which is conncted to scsi on your server.
Emc will have it's own micro kernel that take c
Clement wrote:
>
> This thread is quite interesting. I think it comes to the following
> questions:
>
> - Is the reiserfs stable enough?
> - Is the overhead of reiserfs acceptable?
> - Is the time to 'fsck' valuable enough to justify the cost?
I think you're right - these are the big three. A
This thread is quite interesting. I think it comes to the following
questions:
- Is the reiserfs stable enough?
- Is the overhead of reiserfs acceptable?
- Is the time to 'fsck' valuable enough to justify the cost?
- Is the reiserfs stable enough?
For all I heard, the answer is more likely to
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:53:17PM -0500, Chris Colomb wrote:
> If you're in that percentage that's small comfort.
Quite true. The choice is, however, to determine what recovery costs are
acceptable. It may be acceptable to simply tolerate a long fsck, since it's
a once-in-a-blue-moon event. O
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Chris Colomb wrote:
> Exactly. Which is why we use SGI, AIX, and Solaris for that. Because
> they do journaling right and there isn't a performance impact.
Of course there's a performance impact. It may not be significant compared
to processor/disk throughput, but there *is*
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:26:21PM -0500, Chris Colomb wrote:
> > UPS systems can and do fail.
>
> Absolutely--anything fails, eventually. The issue is one of
> _probability_. You can give anecdotal descriptions of UPS failures
> all day; unless you c
Hi,
I am not an expert; but from my pratical experience.
I used ext2 fs before and I saw some problems
1. My hard disk one time crashed, not for sure the
reason ; kernel says something about lost interrupt
(later I found that is bios bug in APM) but when I
recover it, my my file system there is
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:59:56PM -0500, Ward William E PHDN wrote:
> <>
Sounds to me that this violated the tenet of "properly installed and
maintained"; somebody should have reviewed and vetted that installation
a long time ago.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:26:21PM -0500, Chris Colomb wrote:
> UPS systems can and do fail.
Absolutely--anything fails, eventually. The issue is one of
_probability_. You can give anecdotal descriptions of UPS failures
all day; unless you can point to a statistical proof that they fail
consist
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reiserfs questions & Discussion
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:03:06AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> > That's bunk.
>
> Gently, gently.
> > You
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:03:06AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> > That's bunk.
>
> Gently, gently.
> > You can expect power to fail, because power supply facilities and delivery
> > facilities are not 100% foolproof. Lines go down, etc.
>
> I believe w
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:03:06AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> That's bunk.
Gently, gently.
> You can expect power to fail, because power supply facilities and delivery
> facilities are not 100% foolproof. Lines go down, etc.
I believe what was meant is that if a system is, in fact, considered
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, RaghuNath L wrote:
>
>
> Why do you expect the power to fail on production server ?
>
> If it fails then it can not be termed as production environment , also as
> mathew said Raiser fs significantly hit's the prformence of the system .
That's bunk. You can expect power t
Why do you expect the power to fail on production server ?
If it fails then it can not be termed as production environment , also as
mathew said Raiser fs significantly hit's the prformence of the system .
I have raiserfs on /dev/hdb the disk write and read doesnot go beyon 4 mb per
sec where
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 at 6:13pm (-0500), Fred Whipple wrote:
> RaghuNath L wrote:
> >
> > Raiserfs is very heavy like fat file system and only benifit is it does
> > not take time after power off with out propershutdown .
> >
> > it not recomended at production environment.
>
> I will have to disag
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Fred Whipple wrote:
> RaghuNath L wrote:
> >
> > Raiserfs is very heavy like fat file system and only benifit is it does
> > not take time after power off with out propershutdown .
> >
> > it not recomended at production environment.
>
> I will have to disagree on this one..
RaghuNath L wrote:
>
> Raiserfs is very heavy like fat file system and only benifit is it does
> not take time after power off with out propershutdown .
>
> it not recomended at production environment.
I will have to disagree on this one...
ReiserFS is a _journaling_ file system (and has other
Raiserfs is very heavy like fat file system and only benifit is it does
not take time after power off with out propershutdown .
it not recomended at production environment.
Steve Kieu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone here using reiserfs?
>
> How about other's experience using reiserfs.
>
> In my case it
Hi,
Anyone here using reiserfs?
How about other's experience using reiserfs.
In my case it reduced the disk space rather much and
starting programm faster. But not sure for other's.
I use notail options
I got the problem whenever I reboot or halt the
system, I got the message
clm-6005 Writti
26 matches
Mail list logo
