I can tell you a little about Windows VSS snapshots compared to ZFS ones, since
one of the main reasons I'm so interested in ZFS is because windows snapshots
are so useless.
For windows VSS:
* You have OS overhead for taking the snapshot, as opposed to it being
instantaneous for ZFS. Microsoft
> "jh" == Johan Hartzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jh> raid5 suffers from the "write-hole" problem.
this is only when you use it without a battery.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Joseph Zhou wrote:
>
> Please keep in mind that OpenSolaris and ZFS don't need to be the greatest
> technology today, and we need to respect the older generation engineers'
> thoughts -- it's an evolution of transfering enterprise capabilities to
> industry-standard solutions --
; "Richard
Elling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun
X4150/X4450
On Mon 08/12/08 09:14 , Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
> Ian Collins wrote:
> > Or through the API
On Mon 08/12/08 09:14 , Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
> Ian Collins wrote:
> > Or through the APIs provided by libzfs.
> I'm not sure if those are published/supported as opposed to just being
> readable in the source. I think the ADM project is the droid we're
> looking for.
>
Fair po
Ian Collins wrote:
>
> On Mon 08/12/08 08:14 , Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
>
>> I'm pretty sure I understand the importance of a snapshot API. (You take
>> the snap, then you do the backup or whatever) My point is that, at
>> least on my quick read, you can do most of the same t
On Mon 08/12/08 08:14 , Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
> I'm pretty sure I understand the importance of a snapshot API. (You take
> the snap, then you do the backup or whatever) My point is that, at
> least on my quick read, you can do most of the same things with the ZFS
> command
7;s your comment on ZFS PiT is better than MS PiT, in light of
>>> openness and 3rd-party integration???
>>>
>>> Talking about garbage!
>>> z
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Torrey McMahon"
>>> <[EM
On 07 December, 2008 - Johan Hartzenberg sent me these 6,3K bytes:
> For what it is worth, have a look at my ZFS feature wishlist / AKA what it
> would take to make ZFS _THE_ last word in storage management:
> http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com/2008/07/zfs-missing-features.html
#2 can kinda b
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Aaron Blew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've done some basic testing with a X4150 machine using 6 disks in a RAID 5
> and RAID Z configuration. They perform very similarly, but RAIDZ definitely
> has more system overhead. In many cases this won't be a big deal, bu
ph Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Richard Elling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "William D. Hathaway"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun
> X4150/X4450
>
>
>> Richard Elling wrote:
>>> Joseph
TECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun
X4150/X4450
> Richard Elling wrote:
>> Joseph Zhou wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah?
>>> http://www.adapte
Richard Elling wrote:
> Joseph Zhou wrote:
>
>> Yeah?
>> http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm
>> Snapshot is a big deal?
>>
>>
>
> Snapshot is a big deal, but you will find most "hardware" RAID
> implementations
> are s
alyst
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "William D. Hathaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun
> X4150/X4450
>
>
>
>> I don
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun
X4150/X4450
>I don't understand your statement/questions. This wasn't a response to
>"ZFS versus every possible storage platform
I don't understand your statement/questions. This wasn't a response to "ZFS
versus every possible storage platform in the world". The original poster was
asking about comparing ZFS versus hardware RAID on specific machines as
mentioned in the title. AFAIK you don't get compression, snapshots
35 AM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun
X4150/X4450
> Keep in mind that if you use ZFS you get a lot of additional functionality
> like snapshots, compression, clones.
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
>
Keep in mind that if you use ZFS you get a lot of additional functionality like
snapshots, compression, clones.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/list
I've done some basic testing with a X4150 machine using 6 disks in a RAID 5
and RAID Z configuration. They perform very similarly, but RAIDZ definitely
has more system overhead. In many cases this won't be a big deal, but if
you need as many CPU cycles as you can muster, hardware RAID may be your
Hi,
Has anyone implemented the Hardware RAID 1/5 on Sun X4150/X4450 class of
servers .
Also any comparison between ZFS Vs H/W Raid ?
I would like to know the experience (good/bad) and the pros/cons?
Regards,
Vikash
___
zfs-discuss maili
21 matches
Mail list logo
