On Sep 11, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
x4500's have Marvell SATA controllers, not LSI. My issue with Intel
SSD's
being marked faulty in X4500's has yet to be resolved. The last time I
rebooted it fm started marking the SSD failed again due to invalid
self-check log data. I had so
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Alex Li wrote:
> We finally resolved this issue by change LSI driver. For details, please
> refer to here
> http://enginesmith.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/ssd-faults-finally-resolved/
I believe you hijacked my thread ;).
x4500's have Marvell SATA controllers, not LSI. My issue
I had a OpenSolaris server running basically as a fileserver for all my windows
machines. The CIFS server was running in WORKGROUP mode. I had several users
defined on the server to match my windows users. I had these users in a few
groups (the most important being Parents and Kids).
For var
At 8:25 PM +0300 9/11/09, Markus Kovero wrote:
I believe failover is best to be done manually just to be sure
active node is really dead before importing it on another node,
otherwise there could be serious issues I think.
I believe there are many users of Linux-HA, aka heartbeat, who do
fa
Brandon High wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Brandon High wrote:
The keynote was given on Wednesday. Any more willingness to discuss
dedup on the list now?
Two months and still no word on deduplication. Is there anything to announce?
Can we make a FAQ on this somewhere?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Brandon High wrote:
> The keynote was given on Wednesday. Any more willingness to discuss
> dedup on the list now?
Two months and still no word on deduplication. Is there anything to announce?
-B
--
Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com
If violence doesn't solve you
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Chris Du wrote:
> You can optimize for better IOPS or for transfer speed. NS2 SATA and SAS
> share most of the design, but they are still different, cache, interface,
> firmware are all different.
>
> Then by much better, I don't mean just IOPS, it's all the 3, be
On Fri, Sep 11 at 16:15, Tim Cook wrote:
The question wasn't about consumer vs. enterprise drives. He said the SAS
interface improves IOPS. Please don't change the topic of discussion
mid-thread.
Sorry, wasn't trying to derail, but most people don't make the
distinctions you do.
I thin
You can optimize for better IOPS or for transfer speed. NS2 SATA and SAS share
most of the design, but they are still different, cache, interface, firmware
are all different.
Then by much better, I don't mean just IOPS, it's all the 3, better IOPS,
command queue and error recovery, etc.
--
Th
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Eric D. Mudama
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11 at 13:14, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>> Better IOPS? Do you have some numbers to back that claim up? I've never
>> heard of anyone getting "much better" IOPS out of a drive by simply
>> changing the interface from SATA to SAS. Or
Hello,
I have a ZFS filesystem structure, which is basically like this:
/foo
/foo/bar
/foo/baz
all are from one pool and /foo does only contain the other
directories/mounts (no other files)
When I try to export /foo via dfstab, I can see the directories bar and baz,
but these are empty.
Can I
On 09/11/09 03:20 PM, Brandon Mercer wrote:
They are so well known that simply by asking if you were using them
suggests that they suck. :) There are actually pretty hit or miss
issues with all 1.5TB drives but that particular manufacturer has had
a few more than others.
FWIW I have a few of
Brandon Mercer writes:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Volker A. Brandt wrote:
> >> Seagate 1.5 TB drives?
> >
> > This sounds somewhat ominous. Are there known problems?
>
> They are so well known that simply by asking if you were using them
> suggests that they suck. :) There are actually
I have tried to unmount the zfs volume and remount it. However, this does not
help the issue.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Fri, Sep 11 at 13:14, Tim Cook wrote:
Better IOPS? Do you have some numbers to back that claim up? I've never
heard of anyone getting "much better" IOPS out of a drive by simply
changing the interface from SATA to SAS. Or SATA to FATA for that
matter. A 7200RPM drive is limited by
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Volker A. Brandt wrote:
>> Seagate 1.5 TB drives?
>
> This sounds somewhat ominous. Are there known problems?
They are so well known that simply by asking if you were using them
suggests that they suck. :) There are actually pretty hit or miss
issues with all 1
some time out if they don't have updated firmware
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Volker A. Brandt wrote:
> > Seagate 1.5 TB drives?
>
> This sounds somewhat ominous. Are there known problems?
>
>
> Thanks -- Volker
> --
> --
> Seagate 1.5 TB drives?
This sounds somewhat ominous. Are there known problems?
Thanks -- Volker
--
Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris
Brandt & Brandt Computer GmbH
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Chris Du wrote:
> >>Can you use SATA drives with expanders at all? (I have to stick to
> enterprise/nearline SATA (100 EUR/TByte vs. 60 EUR/TByte consumer SATA) for
> cost reasons).
>
> Yes you can in E1 model. E1 is single path model which supports both SAS
> an
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Markus Kovero wrote:
>
>> Hi, I was just wondering following idea, I guess somebody mentioned
>> something similar and I’d like some thoughts on this.
>>
>> 1. create iscsi volume on Node-A and mount it lo
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 13:06, Will Murnane wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 21:29, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> Let it run for another day.
> I'll let it keep running as long as it wants this time.
scrub: scrub completed after 42h32m with 0 errors on Thu Sep 10 17:20:19 2009
>>Can you use SATA drives with expanders at all? (I have to stick to
>>enterprise/nearline SATA (100 EUR/TByte vs. 60 EUR/TByte consumer SATA) for
>>cost reasons).
Yes you can in E1 model. E1 is single path model which supports both SAS and
SATA. You need to know what you are buying. The Superm
This also occurs when I do a zfs destroy.
Thanks!
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I believe failover is best to be done manually just to be sure active node is
really dead before importing it on another node, otherwise there could be
serious issues I think.
Yours
Markus Kovero
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@o
This also makes failover more easy, as volumes are already shared via iscsi on
both nodes.
I have to poke it next week to see performance numbers, I could imagine it
plays within expected iscsi performance, or it should atleast.
Yours
Markus Kovero
-Original Message-
From: Richard Elling
Hello all,
I am having a problem when I do a zfs promote or a zfs rollback, I get a
"dataset is busy error" I am now doing a image update to see if there was an
issue with the image I have. Has anyone idea as to how to fix this issue?
Thanks,
Greg
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
On Sep 11, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Markus Kovero wrote:
Hi, I was just wondering following idea, I guess somebody mentioned
something similar and I’d like some thoughts on this.
1. create iscsi volume on Node-A and mount it locally with
iscsiadm
2. create pool with this local iscsi-s
Seagate 1.5 TB drives?
-- richard
On Sep 11, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Mads Skipper wrote:
I am using a Asrock motherboard and a LSI Megaraid controller I wanted
to connect 4 drives to my LSI Raid controller and 1 drive to my
motherboard. This would make it possible for me to run 2 x 5 drives in
Raid-
This method also allows one to nest mirroring or some RAID-z level with
mirroring.
When I tested it with a older build a while back, I found performance really
poor, about 1-2 MB/second, but my environment was also constrained.
A major showstopper had been the infamous 3 minute iSCSI timeout,
I am using a Asrock motherboard and a LSI Megaraid controller I wanted
to connect 4 drives to my LSI Raid controller and 1 drive to my
motherboard. This would make it possible for me to run 2 x 5 drives in
Raid-Z.
But..
When I do this and begin copying to the Raid-Z it will copy some GBs
before th
As I sit here building netatalk (assuming it will actually build) it occurs
to me that maybe AFP could be the next protocol to be merged directly into
ZFS the way NFS and CIFS have been.
Any thoughs/opinions on this? I think this would be a great way to get ZFS
out there into OSX shops by way of
Personally I don't care about SXCE EOL, but what about before 2010.02?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 09/10/09 16:22, en...@businessgrade.com wrote:
Quoting Bob Friesenhahn :
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Rich Morris wrote:
On 07/28/09 17:13, Rich Morris wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Sun has opened internal CR 6859997. It is now in Dispatched
state at High prio
Hi, I was just wondering following idea, I guess somebody mentioned something
similar and I'd like some thoughts on this.
1. create iscsi volume on Node-A and mount it locally with iscsiadm
2. create pool with this local iscsi-share
3. create iscsi volume on Node-B and share
>Can you use SATA drives with expanders at all? (I have to stick
>to enterprise/nearline SATA (100 EUR/TByte vs. 60 EUR/TByte
>consumer SATA) for cost reasons).
Yes, the expander has nothing to do with the drive in front of it.
I have several SAS expanders with SATA drives on them.
>What is the a
Andre Lue wrote:
Can anyone answer if we will get zfs de-duplication before SXCE EOL? If
possible also anser the same on encryption?
Why do you care wither it happens before SXCE EOL or not ?
--
Darren J Moffat
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discu
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:54:16AM -0700, Chris Du wrote:
> Why do you need 3x LSI SAS3081E-R? The back plane has LSI SAS x36 expander so
> you only nedd 1x 3081E. If you want multipathing, you need E2 model.
Can you use SATA drives with expanders at all? (I have to stick
to enterprise/nearline S
Hi,
Thanks for the prompt response.
I tried using digest with sha256 to calculate the uberblock checksum. Now,
digest gives me a 65 char's ouput, while zdb -uuu pool-name, gives me only 49
char output.
how can this be accounted?
I'm trying to understand how the checksum is calculated and dis
Couple months, nope. I guess there is this DOS utility provided by WD that
allows you change TLER settings
having TLER disabled can be problem, faulty disks timeout randomly and zfs
doesn't always want to mark them as failed, sometimes it does though.
Yours
Markus Kovero
-Original Message--
How long have you had them in production?
Were you able to adjust the TLER settings from within solaris?
Thanks,
Tristan.
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Markus Kovero
Sent: Friday, 11 Septembe
We've been using caviar black 1TB with disk configurations consisting 64 disks
or more. They are working just fine.
Yours
Markus Kovero
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
Sent: 11. syyskuuta
41 matches
Mail list logo
