On Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 00:05:17 CEST, Nils Goroll wrote:
> Matthias,
>
> that does not answer my question.
>
> The question is: Why can't I decide that I consciously want to destroy the
> (two way)
> mirror (and, yes, do away with any redundancy).
>
Hi,
this pool does not have any re
On Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 17:47:32 CEST, Rainer J.H. Brandt wrote:
> Ronald Kuehn writes:
> > On Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 16:36:26 CEST, Rainer J.H. Brandt wrote:
> >
> > > Ronald Kuehn writes:
> > > > No. You can neither access ZFS nor UFS in that way.
On Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 16:36:26 CEST, Rainer J.H. Brandt wrote:
> Ronald Kuehn writes:
> > No. You can neither access ZFS nor UFS in that way. Only one
> > host can mount the file system at the same time (read/write or
> > read-only doesn't matter here).
>
On Friday, August 24, 2007 at 21:06:28 CEST, Matt B wrote:
> Cant use the network because these 4 hosts are database servers that will be
> dumping close to a Terabyte every night. If we put that over the network all
> the other servers would be starved
I'm afraid there aren't many other options
On Friday, August 24, 2007 at 20:41:04 CEST, Matt B wrote:
> That is what I was afraid of.
>
> In regards to QFS and NFS, isnt QFS something that must be purchased? I
> looked on the SUN website and it appears to be a little pricey.
>
> NFS is free, but is there a way to use NFS without traversi
On Friday, August 24, 2007 at 20:14:05 CEST, Matt B wrote:
Hi,
> Is it a supported configuration to have a single LUN presented to 4 different
> Sun servers over a fiber channel network and then mounting that LUN on each
> host as the same ZFS filesystem?
No. You can neither access ZFS nor UFS
On Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 19:53:00 CEST, Jeffrey Collyer wrote:
> Perhaps this has been covered elsewhere, but I can't seem to google it
> up so I'll ask -
>
> Can I take an existing Solaris 10 box, current on patches, but not
> installed from a sun express with ZFS install disk, and add ZFS
