Will Murnane wrote:
> On 9/6/07, Diego Righi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...anyway I wanted to make it the most silent I could, so I suspeded all the
>> 10 disks
> Warning: unfounded speculation ahead.
>
> I've heard that this can cause performance issues and undue wear on
> the drive. The rea
> Unfortunately it only comes with 4 adapters, bare
> metal adapters without any dampering /silencing and
> so on...
> ...anyway I wanted to make it the most silent I
> could, so I suspeded all the 10 disks (8 sata 320gb
> and a little 2,5" pata root disk) with a flexible
> wire, like I posted in t
On 9/6/07 2:51 PM, "Joe S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone here attempted to store their MS Exchange data store on a
> ZFS pool? If so, could you please tell me about your setup? A friend
> is looking for a NAS solution, and may be interested in a ZFS box
> instead of a netapp or something
Neil Perrin wrote:
>
>
> Tim Spriggs wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think I have gained "sufficient fool" status for testing the
>> fool-proof-ness of zfs. I have a cluster of T1000 servers running
>> Solaris 10 and two x4100's running an OpenSolaris dist (Nexenta)
>> which is at b68. Each T1000 h
Agreed !
However, you may be able to lower the sound ever so slightly more by
staggering the drives so that every other one is upside down, spinning the
opposite direction and thus minimizing accumulative rotational vibration.
I had to make a makeshift temporary server when our NAS gateway devi
Tim Spriggs wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think I have gained "sufficient fool" status for testing the
> fool-proof-ness of zfs. I have a cluster of T1000 servers running
> Solaris 10 and two x4100's running an OpenSolaris dist (Nexenta) which
> is at b68. Each T1000 hosts several zones each of w
On 9/4/07 4:34 PM, "Richard Elling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> my comments below...
> note that I didn't see zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org in the CC for the
> original...
>
> Andy Lubel wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have been asked to implement a zfs based solution using storedge 6130 and
Casper,
> Do you have a reference for "all data in RAM most be held". I guess we
> need to build COW RAM as well.
Is that one of those genetic hybrids?
Regards... Sean.
BTW: I remember the days when only RAS and CAS kept your data in memory
"intact" ;-)
___
On 9/6/07, Diego Righi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...anyway I wanted to make it the most silent I could, so I suspeded all the
> 10 disks
Warning: unfounded speculation ahead.
I've heard that this can cause performance issues and undue wear on
the drive. The reasoning is that since the arm ass
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:43:21PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>> The best documented one is the inverted meta data tree that allows wofs
> >>> to write
> >>> only one new generation node fo
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:26 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, nobody has characterized resilvering, though this is about the 4th
>> time this week someone has brought the topic up. Has anyone done work here
>> that we don't know about? If so, please speak up :-)
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> The best documented one is the inverted meta data tree that allows wofs to
>>> write
>>> only one new generation node for one modified file while ZFS needs to also
>>> write new
>>> nodes for all d
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:45:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >That "but it existed only in RAM in my servers" should not be a defense
> >for failing to retain discoverable evidence is distinct from the issue
> >of what constitutes discoverable evidence.
>
> But only if you were told you ne
>That "but it existed only in RAM in my servers" should not be a defense
>for failing to retain discoverable evidence is distinct from the issue
>of what constitutes discoverable evidence.
But only if you were told you needed to retain the data in the
first place. How can you be faulted for not
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:16:50PM -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >Allowing for technical illiteracy in judges I think the obvious
> >interpretation is that discoverable data should be retained and that
> >"but it exists only in RAM" is not a de
On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> Exactly the articles point -- rulings have consequences outside of
>> the
>> original case. The intent may have been to store logs for web server
>> access (logical and prudent request) but the ruling states that
>> RAM albeit
>> working m
On 9/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
> encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
> falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
> topic. It seems like
Has anyone here attempted to store their MS Exchange data store on a
ZFS pool? If so, could you please tell me about your setup? A friend
is looking for a NAS solution, and may be interested in a ZFS box
instead of a netapp or something like that.
Thanks.
__
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:38:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly
> > > written. Or am I misreading the story?
> >
> > Hmmm, the order itself goes on and on about RAM. I think the judge
> > should have been clearer tha
> >
> > If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly
> > written. Or am I misreading the story?
>
> Hmmm, the order itself goes on and on about RAM. I think the judge
> should have been clearer that the issue is the specific data, as opposed
> to generic RAM conten
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:25:32PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:18:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM:
> > > >It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know
> > what
> > > >will happen in co
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:18:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM:
> > >It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know
> what
> > >will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
> > >all data in RAM
It's Columbia Pictures vs. Bunnell:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/torrentspy/columbia_v_bunnell_magistrate_order.pdf
The Register syndicated a Security Focus article that summarizes the
potential impact of the court decision:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/08/litigation_data_retention/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM:
>
>
> >It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know
what
> >will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
> >all data in RAM be held for discovery ?!WHAT, HEAD HURTS!?). But at the
> >end of
Ah, thanks! I thought it may be possible to show up as a separate
mountpoint. But you're right... this is not really needed! Thanks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Darren J Moffat
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 2:14 PM
To: Poulos, J
>It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know what
>will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
>all data in RAM be held for discovery ?!WHAT, HEAD HURTS!?). But at the
>end of the day, if you waited for a sure bet on any technology or
>poten
Poulos, Joe wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am messing around with zfs snapshots, and was wondering if it is
> possible to mount a zfs snapshot. I would like to use this snapshot to
> backup to tape.
>
>
>
> Currently, I see the data in the following path:
> /testjp1/.zfs/snapshot/testsn
Hello,
I am messing around with zfs snapshots, and was wondering if it is
possible to mount a zfs snapshot. I would like to use this snapshot to
backup to tape.
Currently, I see the data in the following path:
/testjp1/.zfs/snapshot/testsnapjp
This message and its attachments
>
> >Playing with patent portfolios is the modern equivalent to playing
> the "mutually assured destruction" game with nuclear missiles. Yes
> we all appreciate how dangereous this game is and how high the
> stakes are. But ... notice that a live/armed ballistic missile has
> never been fired
At 11:06 AM 9/6/2007, Al Hopper wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Harold Ancell wrote:
>
>>At 09:33 AM 9/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
>>>encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
>>>falter comm
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 06:20:55PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now that you mention Nuclear weapons, am I really the only one who
> is amused by the uproar about a B52 with nukes flying over the US?
Europe does not have the anti-nuke opinion set market cornered, ya know?
> Until the Minutem
>Playing with patent portfolios is the modern equivalent to playing the
>"mutually assured destruction" game with nuclear missiles. Yes we all
>appreciate how dangereous this game is and how high the stakes are.
>But ... notice that a live/armed ballistic missile has never been
>fired at a "t
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Harold Ancell wrote:
> At 09:33 AM 9/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
>> encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
>> falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be co
Wow, what a creative idea. And I'll bet that allows for much more
airflow than the 4-in-3 drive cages do. Very nice.
On 9/6/07, Diego Righi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately it only comes with 4 adapters, bare metal adapters without any
> dampering /silencing and so on...
> ...anyway I w
At 09:33 AM 9/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
>encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
>falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
>topic. It seems like something u
Unfortunately it only comes with 4 adapters, bare metal adapters without any
dampering /silencing and so on...
...anyway I wanted to make it the most silent I could, so I suspeded all the 10
disks (8 sata 320gb and a little 2,5" pata root disk) with a flexible wire,
like I posted in this italian
> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
>encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
>falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
>topic. It seems like something users should be aware of, but if I were
>worki
This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
topic. It seems like something users should be aware of, but if I were
working
More here
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9034496
On 9/5/07, David Magda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Not sure if anyone at Sun can comment on this, but I thought it might
> be of interest to the list:
>
> > This morning, NetApp filed a
Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > The best documented one is the inverted meta data tree that allows wofs to
> > write
> > only one new generation node for one modified file while ZFS needs to also
> > write new
> > nodes for all directories above the file in
40 matches
Mail list logo
