So what are the failure modes to worry about?
I'm not exactly sure what the implications of this nocache option for my
configuration.
Say from a recent example I have an overtemp and first one array shuts down,
then the other one.
I come in after A/C is returned, shutdown and repower everythin
Battery back-ed cache...
Interestingly enough, I've seen this configuration in production
(V880/SAP on Oracle) running Solaris 8 + Veritas Storage Foundation
(for the RAID-1 part).
Speed is good ... redundancy is good ... price is not (2/3).
Uptime 499 days :)
On 10/9/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PR
On 10/6/07, Vincent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I went ahead and loaded 10u4 on a pair of V210 units.
>
> I am going to set this nocacheflush option and cross my fingers and see how
> it goes.
>
> I have my ZPool mirroring LUNs off 2 different arrays. I have
> single-controllers in each
provided 3310 cache does not induce silent block corruption when
writing to disks
s.
On 10/5/07, Vincent Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I went ahead and loaded 10u4 on a pair of V210 units.
>
> I am going to set this nocacheflush option and cross my fingers and see how
> it goes.
>
> I have
So I went ahead and loaded 10u4 on a pair of V210 units.
I am going to set this nocacheflush option and cross my fingers and see how it
goes.
I have my ZPool mirroring LUNs off 2 different arrays. I have
single-controllers in each 3310. My belief is it's OK for me to do this even
without dua
Dale Ghent wrote:
> Yes, it's in there:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/$ cat /etc/release
> Solaris 10 8/07 s10x_u4wos_12b X86
>
It's also available in U3 (and probably earlier releases as well) after
installing kernel patch 120011-14 or 120012-14. I checked this last night.
Pr
Vincent Fox wrote:
>> Solaris Cluster 3.2 supports Solaris 10 8/07 (aka
>> u4). Where did you hear that
>> it didn't?
>
> Took an Advanced Clustering class a few weeks before U4 came out. At that
> time I think the instructor said U3 was the "supported" configuration and
> he wasn't sure when U4
On Sep 27, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> So will this "nocache" option work in U4?
Yes, it's in there:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/$ cat /etc/release
Solaris 10 8/07 s10x_u4wos_12b X86
Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
>
> Solaris Cluster 3.2 supports Solaris 10 8/07 (aka
> u4). Where did you hear that
> it didn't?
Took an Advanced Clustering class a few weeks before U4 came out. At that time
I think the instructor said U3 was the "supported" configuration and he wasn't
sure when U4 would be a verified and s
Vincent Fox wrote:
>> Vincent Fox wrote:
>>
>> Is this what you're referring to?
>> http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evi
>> l_Tuning_Guide#Cache_Flushes
>
> As I wrote several times in this thread, this kernel variable does not work
> in Sol 10u3.
>
> Probably not in u4 althoug
> Vincent Fox wrote:
>
> Is this what you're referring to?
> http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evi
> l_Tuning_Guide#Cache_Flushes
As I wrote several times in this thread, this kernel variable does not work in
Sol 10u3.
Probably not in u4 although I haven't tried it.
I would li
On Sep 26, 2007, at 14:10, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> You probably don't have to create a LUN the size of the NVRAM
> either. As
> long as its dedicated to one LUN then it should be pretty quick. The
> 3510 cache, last I checked, doesn't do any per LUN segmentation or
> sizing. Its a simple front
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 02:10:39PM -0400, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> Albert Chin wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:01:00PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
> >
> >> I don't understand. How do you
> >>
> >> "setup one LUN that has all of the NVRAM on the array dedicated to it"
> >>
> >> I'm pretty fam
The theory I am going by is that 10 seconds worth of your synchronous
writes is sufficient
for the slog. That breaks down if the main pool is the bottleneck.
-r
Le 26 sept. 07 à 20:10, Torrey McMahon a écrit :
> Albert Chin wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:01:00PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrot
Albert Chin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:01:00PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
>
>> I don't understand. How do you
>>
>> "setup one LUN that has all of the NVRAM on the array dedicated to it"
>>
>> I'm pretty familiar with 3510 and 3310. Forgive me for being a bit
>> thick here, but can you
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 07:22 -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> the bottom line is that there's 2 competing cache
> strategies that aren't very complimentary.
To put it differently, technologies like ZFS change the optimal way to
build systems.
The ARC exists to speed up reads, and needs to be l
Vincent Fox wrote:
> It seems like ZIL is a separate issue.
>
> I have read that putting ZIL on a separate device helps, but what about the
> cache?
>
> OpenSolaris has some flag to disable it. Solaris 10u3/4 do not. I have
> dual-controllers with NVRAM and battery backup, why can't I make use
On Sep 25, 2007, at 19:57, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 04:47:48PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
>> It seems like ZIL is a separate issue.
>
> It is very much the issue: the seperate log device work was done
> exactly
> to make better use of this kind of non-volatile memory.
Vincent Fox writes:
> I don't understand. How do you
>
> "setup one LUN that has all of the NVRAM on the array dedicated to it"
>
> I'm pretty familiar with 3510 and 3310. Forgive me for being a bit
> thick here, but can you be more specific for the n00b?
>
> Do you mean from firmware
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:01:00PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
> I don't understand. How do you
>
> "setup one LUN that has all of the NVRAM on the array dedicated to it"
>
> I'm pretty familiar with 3510 and 3310. Forgive me for being a bit
> thick here, but can you be more specific for the n00b?
I don't understand. How do you
"setup one LUN that has all of the NVRAM on the array dedicated to it"
I'm pretty familiar with 3510 and 3310. Forgive me for being a bit
thick here, but can you be more specific for the n00b?
Do you mean from firmware side or OS side? Or since the LUNs used
for
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 04:47:48PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
> It seems like ZIL is a separate issue.
It is very much the issue: the seperate log device work was done exactly
to make better use of this kind of non-volatile memory. To use this, setup
one LUN that has all of the NVRAM on the arra
It seems like ZIL is a separate issue.
I have read that putting ZIL on a separate device helps, but what about the
cache?
OpenSolaris has some flag to disable it. Solaris 10u3/4 do not. I have
dual-controllers with NVRAM and battery backup, why can't I make use of it?
Would I be wasting my
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 10:14 -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Where is ZFS with regards to the NVRAM cache present on arrays?
>
> I have a pile of 3310 with 512 megs cache, and even some 3510FC with
> 1-gig cache. It seems silly that it's going to waste. These are
> dual-controller units so I have no
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:14:57AM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Where is ZFS with regards to the NVRAM cache present on arrays?
>
> I have a pile of 3310 with 512 megs cache, and even some 3510FC with 1-gig
> cache. It seems silly that it's going to waste. These are dual-controller
> units so I
25 matches
Mail list logo
