On 9/6/07, Dave Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Be careful here. I
On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite; it seems to all be done with blogs.
After Netapp's blog, we now see Sun's CEO enter into the fray:
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/on_patent_trolling
And now NetApp's response:
I've seen the page with the pics of that server, and I agree with this issue.
So I'd like to try to reverse half of the disks too, how would you advice to do
this?
My current setup is as follows, where up is normal disk upside paced, and down
is with upside plate down and electronics side up:
up
Alec Muffett wrote:
But
finally, and this is the critical problem, each user's home
directory is now a separate NFS share.
At first look that final point doesn't seem to be much of a worry
until you look at the implications that brings. To cope with a
distributed system with a
On 9/7/07, Alec Muffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main bugbear is what the ZFS development team laughably call
quotas. They aren't quotas, they are merely filesystem size
restraints. To get around this the developers use the let them eat
cake mantra, creating filesystems is easy so
The complaint is not new, and the problem isn't quotas or lack thereof.
The problem is that remote filesystem clients can't cope with frequent
changes to a server's share list, which is just ZFS's filesystems are
cheap approach promotes.
Basically ZFS was ahead of everyone's implementation of
On 9/7/07, Mike Gerdts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, quotas are likely to be a pain point that prevents me from
making good use of snapshots. Getting changes in application teams'
understanding and behavior is just too much trouble. Others are:
not to mention there are smaller-scale users
Mike Gerdts wrote:
It appears as though the author has not yet tried out snapshots. The
fact that space used by a snapshot for the sysadmin's convenience
counts against the user's quota is the real killer.
Very soon there will be another way to specify quotas (and
reservations) such that
http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html
Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night discussing some
of the prior art, going back to some of the disks could do this too
discussions by early tree structured binary data structures inventions,
mentioning other copy-on-write
Mike Gerdts wrote:
Having worked in academia and multiple Fortune 100's, the problem
seems to be most prevalent in academia, although possibly a minor
inconvenience in some engineering departments in industry. In the
.edu where I used to manage the UNIX environment, I would have a tough
time
I've just subscribed to this list after Alec's posting and reading the
comments in the archive and I have a couple of comments:
Mike Gerdts:
While NFS4 holds some promise here, it is not a solution today. It
won't be until all OS's that came out before 2008 are gone. That will
be a while.
You should probably be doing a ZFS clone and backing that up.
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.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
Yes, if you have any MFM/RLL drives in your possession, please disregard my
recomendation ;)
-=dave
- Original Message -
From: Paul Kraus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] New zfs pr0n server :)))
On
the up/down/up/down/... scenario should give the best results in minimizing
accumulative rotation vibration.
-=dave
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dave Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Christopher Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Friday,
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:25:38PM +0100, Stephen Usher wrote:
Nicolas Williams:
Unfortunately for us at the coal face it's very rare that we can do the
ideal thing. Quotas are part of the problem but the main problem is that
there is currently no way over overcoming the interoperability
On 9/7/07, Stephen Usher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian H. Nelson:
I'm sure it would be interesting for those on the list if you could
outline the gotchas so that the rest of us don't have to re-invent the
wheel... or at least not fall down the pitfalls.
The UFS on zvols option sounds
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 06:19:34PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
backups and restores. Snapshots of the zvols could be mounted as
other UFS file systems that could allow for self-service restores.
Perhaps this would make it so that you can write data to tape a bit
less frequently.
This would
George William Herbert wrote:
http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html
Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night discussing some
of the prior art, going back to some of the disks could do this too
discussions by early tree structured binary data structures
This changed subject long ago...
[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 needed to
I am curious why zpool status reports a pool to be in the DEGRADED state
after a drive in a raidz2 vdev has been successfully replaced. In this
particular case drive c0t6d0 was failing so I ran,
zpool offline home/c0t6d0
zpool replace home c0t6d0 c8t1d0
and after the resilvering finished the
20 matches
Mail list logo
