zmttoxics wrote:As for the raid contoller part, why wouldn't you use zfs? In terms of administration (believe on this), you are making your life EASY with zfs.
bri3d wrote:zmttoxics wrote:As for the raid contoller part, why wouldn't you use zfs? In terms of administration (believe on this), you are making your life EASY with zfs.
RAID-Z sucks. In terms of speed and reliability it's not really close to RAID-6 on dedicated controllers, especially as the number of drives grows.
jsloan wrote:yeah, and there are some issues in our organization with tools and work flows, etc., that are all going to break with ZFS.
This isn't knocking ZFS - we're excited about it - but for this application we really do need physical raid controllers. I'm just not sure if it's possible to address 48 drives with physical controllers in a thumper, and am trying to find out how...
bri3d wrote:re: reliability: http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss ... 28907.html
Of course the Thumper docs don't say anything about hardware RAID, because they were designed, implemented, and executed to run only RAID-Z. I don't think you could get enough ports off of any commercially available low-profile SATA RAID controllers to run hardware RAID on one (the disks are SATA, by the way, not SAS).
Sun have been switching between LSI and Marvell parts for a while (leaning towards Marvell lately). The X4500 is Marvell while the X4540 is LSI, if I recall correctly.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests