On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> > On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> > > I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too
> many helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core"
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Right. And in the real world, customers are generally not involved with
architectural discussions of products. Their input is collected and
feed into the process, but they don't get to sit at the whiteboard with
developers as the work on the designs.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
> helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers
> who make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now. The rest
> of us
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> > I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
> > helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers
> > who make a lot of this move forward,
On 04/10/11 09:25 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers w
On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers who
make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now. The rest of us will just
muddy
I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers who
make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now. The rest of us
will just muddy the waters with conflicting/divergent opinions
On 9 Apr 2011, at 12:59, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 04/09/2011 01:41 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Julian King
>>>
>>> Actually I think our figures more or less agree. 12 disks = 7 mbits
>
On 04/09/2011 01:41 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Julian King
>>
>> Actually I think our figures more or less agree. 12 disks = 7 mbits
>> 48 disks = 4x7mbits
>
> I know that sounds like terri
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Julian King
>
> Actually I think our figures more or less agree. 12 disks = 7 mbits
> 48 disks = 4x7mbits
I know that sounds like terrible performance to me. Any time I benchmark
disks, a che
On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:43, Marion Hakanson wrote:
>> which peak at around 7 Gb/s down a 10G link (in reality I don't need that
>> much because it is all about the IOPS for me). That is with just twelve 15k
>> disks.
>
> Depending on usage, I disagree with your bandwidth and latency figures
11 matches
Mail list logo
