On 2/14/2011 10:37 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
That said, given that SAN NVRAM caches are true write caches (and not
a ZIL-like thing), it should be relatively simple to swamp one with
write requests (most SANs have little more than 1GB of cache), at
which point, the SAN will be blocking on
On 2/15/2011 1:37 PM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
On 2/14/2011 10:37 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
That said, given that SAN NVRAM caches are true write caches (and not
a ZIL-like thing), it should be relatively simple to swamp one with
write requests (most SANs have little more than 1GB of cache), at
With ZFS on a Solaris server using storage on a SAN device, is it
reasonable to configure the storage device to present one LUN for each
RAID group? I'm assuming that the SAN and storage device are
sufficiently reliable that no additional redundancy is necessary on
the Solaris ZFS server. I'm
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Gary Mills mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
I realize that it is possible to configure more than one LUN per RAID
group on the storage device, but doesn't ZFS assume that each LUN
represents an independant disk, and schedule I/O accordingly? In that
case,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:04:18PM -0500, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Gary Mills mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
Is there any reason not to use one LUN per RAID group?
[...]
In other words, if you build a zpool with one vdev of 10GB and
another with two vdev's each
On 2/14/2011 3:52 PM, Gary Mills wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:04:18PM -0500, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Gary Millsmi...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
Is there any reason not to use one LUN per RAID group?
[...]
In other words, if you build a zpool with one vdev of
