All,
So I have started working with Solaris 10 at work a bit (I''m a
Linux
guy by trade) and I have a dying nfs box at home. So the long and short of
it is as follows: I would like to setup a SATAII whitebox that uses ZFS as
its filesystem. The box will probably be very lightly used, streaming media
to my laptop and workstation would be the bulk of the work. However I do
have quite a good deal of data, roughly 400G. So what I would like to know
is what hardware solutions work best for this ? I dont need to have 2TB of
storage on day one, but I might need it sometime down the road. I would
prefer to keep the price low(400 - 600), but I dont buy house brand
motherboard, or controllers either. So who makes a native supported board,
controller (pci-e ?), gigE card and so on. I have a DVD+_RW made by samsung
which I would imagine would work. Any assistance is welcomed and
appreciated.
Regards.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20061010/a510c6a0/attachment.html>
Hi There, You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. Greetings, Peter This message posted from opensolaris.org
Generally, I''ve found the way to go is to get a 4-port SATA PCI controller (something based on the Silicon Image stuff seems to be cheap, common, and supported), and then plunk it into any old PC you can find (or get off of eBay). The major caveat here is that I''d recommend trying to find a PC which has a 64-bit processor, something like an AMD Sempron64 or Intel Celeron D 331 (or similar). Running Solaris in 64-bit mode makes things so much simpler (and usually faster) than 32-bit mode. Avoid like the plague any of the on-board "RAID" solutions. At best, you can use the SATA ports as normal ports. In many cases, they''re just useless. -Erik
On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert <peter.van.gemert at accenture.com> wrote:> Hi There, > > You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. > > Greetings, > PeterI tried that myself - there really isn''t very much on there. I can''t believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know most of my kit isn''t on there), so I assume it isn''t updated that much... My dream machine at the minute is a nice quiet athlon 64 x2 based sytem (probably one of the energy-efficient Windsors, so you get low heat and virtualization support). ZFS root mirror running iSCSI targets. Have yet to find a good recommendation for an AM2 based SATAII motherboard (although in dreamland, solaris has a solid Xen domain0 which takes advantage of Pacifica/AMDV hardware, so I doubt I''ll need to make this reality before next Christmas :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/
clockwork at sigsys.org
2006-Oct-11 14:10 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
So are there any pci-e SATA cards that are supported ? I was hoping to go with a sempron64. Using old-pci seems like a waste. Regards. On 10/11/06, Dick Davies <rasputnik at gmail.com> wrote:> > On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert <peter.van.gemert at accenture.com> wrote: > > Hi There, > > > > You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to > find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. > > > > Greetings, > > Peter > > I tried that myself - there really isn''t very much on there. > I can''t believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know most of > my kit isn''t on there), so I assume it isn''t updated that much... > > My dream machine at the minute is a nice quiet athlon 64 x2 based > sytem (probably one of the energy-efficient Windsors, so you get low heat > and virtualization support). ZFS root mirror running iSCSI targets. > > Have yet to find a good recommendation for an AM2 based SATAII motherboard > (although in dreamland, solaris has a solid Xen domain0 which takes > advantage > of Pacifica/AMDV hardware, so I doubt I''ll need to make this reality > before next > Christmas :) > > -- > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns > http://number9.hellooperator.net/ > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20061011/35fef467/attachment.html>
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 clockwork at sigsys.org wrote:> All, > So I have started working with Solaris 10 at work a bit (I''m a Linux > guy by trade) and I have a dying nfs box at home. So the long and short of > it is as follows: I would like to setup a SATAII whitebox that uses ZFS as > its filesystem. The box will probably be very lightly used, streaming media > to my laptop and workstation would be the bulk of the work. However I do > have quite a good deal of data, roughly 400G. So what I would like to know > is what hardware solutions work best for this ? I dont need to have 2TB of > storage on day one, but I might need it sometime down the road. I would > prefer to keep the price low(400 - 600), but I dont buy house brand > motherboard, or controllers either. So who makes a native supported board, > controller (pci-e ?), gigE card and so on. I have a DVD+_RW made by samsung > which I would imagine would work. Any assistance is welcomed and > appreciated.I''ll shoot for a failsafe, cost effective system that is known to run Solaris: Motherboard: Tyan S2865ANRF - same motherboard as used in the Sun Ultra20[0]. MonarchComputer.com part# 110624 $169 CPU: 939-pin AMD 64, two choices: a) AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 512K 90nm Rev. E Venice (939) (Retail Box-w-Fan) Code: 120274 Price: $119.99 b) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Dual-Core 1MB Per Core 90nm (939) (Retail Box-w-Fan) Code: 120241 Price: $229.99 Upgraded heatsink: ThermalRight XP90C (copper) [1] heatsink fans: FBA09A12M 92mm Panaflo 92x92x25 [2] heatsink compound: Artic Silver (use very sparingly) Memory: DDR-400 - your choice but Kingston is always a safe bet. 2*512Mb sticks for a starter, cost effective, system. 4*512Mb for a good long term solution. Ethernet: Use the built-in interface on the motherboard SATA controller (for ZFS): 4 port Si3114 PCI card purchased from newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16815124020 See details on this list[3]. Caveats: DDR2 memory used with the current AMD AM2 based products is too expensive to meet your budget. The system I speced is a one-shot deal - since DDR memory will become harder to find and the non-AM2 939-pin CPUs will cease to be made at the end of this year. Some are already hard to find. [0] A user on the Solaris on Intel list upgraded to the Sun Ultra 20 BIOS! [1] very heavy. Don''t transport the resulting system without removing the heatsink first. [2] suffix "M" indicates one of L (low-speed), M (medium), H (hi-speed) [3] Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:29:40 -0700 From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b at dd-b.net> To: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org Subject: Fwd: [zfs-discuss] solaris-supported 8-port PCI-X SATA controller Feel free to email me offlist if you have any other questions. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
Followup - if you also want to also use the machine as a workstation:
Graphics card (PCI Express): Pick a Nvidia based board to take advantage
fo the excellent Solaris native driver[0]. The 7600GS has a great
price/performance ratio. This ref [1] also mentions the 7600GT - altough
I''m (almost) sure you won''t be interested in volt modding
them.
[0] http://www.nvidia.com/object/solaris_display_1.0-8774.html
[1]
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce7600gs-voltmodding.html
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
On Oct 11, 2006, at 10:10 AM, clockwork at sigsys.org wrote:> So are there any pci-e SATA cards that are supported ? I was hoping > to go with a sempron64. Using old-pci seems like a waste.Yes. I wrote up a little review of the SIIG SC-SAE412-S1 card which is a two port PCIe card based on the Silicon Image 3132 chip: http://elektronkind.org/2006/09/siig-esata-ii-pcie-card-and-opensolaris The card is a two port eSATA2 card, but SIIG also sells a two port internal SATA card based on the same chip as well. This card is running fine under SX:CR build 47 and would presumably also run fine under Solaris 10 Update 2 or later. /dale
Al Hopper wrote:> Memory: DDR-400 - your choice but Kingston is always a safe bet. 2*512Mb > sticks for a starter, cost effective, system. 4*512Mb for a good long > term solution.Due to fan-out considerations, every BIOS I''ve seen will run DDR400 memory at 333MHz when connected to more than 1 DIMM-per-channel (I believe at AMD''s urging). In other words, you might save a few dollars using DDR333 for 4 x 512MB if you''re not going to run 2 x 1GB (which is the preferred approach). Dana
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Dana H. Myers wrote:> Al Hopper wrote: > > > Memory: DDR-400 - your choice but Kingston is always a safe bet. 2*512Mb > > sticks for a starter, cost effective, system. 4*512Mb for a good long > > term solution. > > Due to fan-out considerations, every BIOS I''ve seen will run DDR400 > memory at 333MHz when connected to more than 1 DIMM-per-channel (I > believe at AMD''s urging).Really!? That''s surprising. Is there a way to verify that on an Ultra20 running Solaris 06/06? Now you''ve gone & done it Dana - you''ve aroused my curiosity! :)> In other words, you might save a few dollars using DDR333 for 4 x 512MB > if you''re not going to run 2 x 1GB (which is the preferred approach). > > Dana >Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
Al Hopper wrote:> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Dana H. Myers wrote: > >> Al Hopper wrote: >> >>> Memory: DDR-400 - your choice but Kingston is always a safe bet. 2*512Mb >>> sticks for a starter, cost effective, system. 4*512Mb for a good long >>> term solution. >> Due to fan-out considerations, every BIOS I''ve seen will run DDR400 >> memory at 333MHz when connected to more than 1 DIMM-per-channel (I >> believe at AMD''s urging). > > Really!? That''s surprising. Is there a way to verify that on an Ultra20 > running Solaris 06/06?Have a look at the BIOS set-up screen; see what speed it''s running your DDR at. It may make a difference whether you have single-sided vs. double-sided DIMMs. It''s not an OS issue, it''s a hardware issue handled by the BIOS.> Now you''ve gone & done it Dana - you''ve aroused my curiosity! :)My apologies ;-) Dana
Darren.Reed at Sun.COM
2006-Oct-11 20:06 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Dick Davies wrote:> On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert <peter.van.gemert at accenture.com> wrote: > >> Hi There, >> >> You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to >> find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. >> >> Greetings, >> Peter > > > I tried that myself - there really isn''t very much on there. > I can''t believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know most of > my kit isn''t on there), so I assume it isn''t updated that much...There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by Solaris. One such tool can be found at: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html There is a process for submitting input back to Sun on driver testing BUT this requires the submitter to sign a contract of sorts, not just email. Darren
On 10/11/06, Darren.Reed at sun.com <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote:> There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by > Solaris. > One such tool can be found at: > http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.htmlBeware of this tool. It reports "Y" for both 32-bit and 64-bit on the nVidia MCP55 SATA controller -- but in the real world, it''s supported only in compatibility mode, and (fatal flaw for me) *it doesn''t support hot-swap with this controller*. So apparently even a clean result from this utility isn''t a safe indication that the device is fully supported. Also, it says that the nVidia MCP55 ethernet is NOT supported in either 32 or 64 bit, but actually nv_44 found the ethernet without any trouble. Maybe that''s just that the support was extended recently; the install tool is based on S10 6/06. The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as a minefield. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b at dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Darren.Reed at Sun.COM
2006-Oct-11 23:24 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:> On 10/11/06, Darren.Reed at sun.com <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote: > >> There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by >> Solaris. >> One such tool can be found at: >> http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html > > > Beware of this tool. It reports "Y" for both 32-bit and 64-bit on the > nVidia MCP55 SATA controller -- but in the real world, it''s supported > only in compatibility mode, and (fatal flaw for me) *it doesn''t > support hot-swap with this controller*. So apparently even a clean > result from this utility isn''t a safe indication that the device is > fully supported. > > Also, it says that the nVidia MCP55 ethernet is NOT supported in > either 32 or 64 bit, but actually nv_44 found the ethernet without any > trouble. Maybe that''s just that the support was extended recently; > the install tool is based on S10 6/06.Driver support for Solaris Nevada is not the same as Solaris 10 Update 2, so it is not surprising to see these discrepencies. In some cases, getting Solaris to support a piece of hardware is as simple as running the update_drv command to tell it about a new PCI id (these change often and are central to driver support on all x86 platforms.)> The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as > a minefield.I''ve found this to be true for almost all open source platforms where you''re trying to use something that hasn''t been explicitly used and tested by the developers. Darren
On 10/11/06, Darren.Reed at sun.com <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote:> > The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as > > a minefield. > > > I''ve found this to be true for almost all open source platforms where > you''re trying to use something that hasn''t been explicitly used and > tested by the developers.I''ve been running Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, I think it was, and have had amazingly little trouble. Whereas I''m now sitting on $2k of hardware that won''t do what I wanted it to do under Solaris, so it''s a bit of a hot-button issue for me right now. I''ve never had to consider Linux issues in selecting hardware (in fact I haven''t selected hardware, my linux boxes have all been castoffs originally purchased to run Windowsx), whereas I made considerable efforts to find out what should work and how careful I had to be, including asking for advice on this list, and I have still ended up getting screwed. Yeah, I''m a little bitter about this. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b at dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
clockwork at sigsys.org
2006-Oct-12 01:07 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Well thats probably because both windows and Linux were designed with the intel/x86/cheap crap market in mind. A more valid comparison would be OSX, since it is also designed to run on a somewhat specific set of hardware. Solaris will get there, but the open aspect of solaris on intel is still fairly new, newer than .99 was at the time. # I am writing this from my t60, which is running linux. Ask me about the wireless driver. Its as flaky as a blonde from southern california circa the hair band era. On 10/11/06, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote:> > On 10/11/06, Darren.Reed at sun.com <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote: > > > > The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as > > > a minefield. > > > > > > I''ve found this to be true for almost all open source platforms where > > you''re trying to use something that hasn''t been explicitly used and > > tested by the developers. > > I''ve been running Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, I think it was, and > have had amazingly little trouble. Whereas I''m now sitting on $2k of > hardware that won''t do what I wanted it to do under Solaris, so it''s a > bit of a hot-button issue for me right now. I''ve never had to > consider Linux issues in selecting hardware (in fact I haven''t > selected hardware, my linux boxes have all been castoffs originally > purchased to run Windowsx), whereas I made considerable efforts to > find out what should work and how careful I had to be, including > asking for advice on this list, and I have still ended up getting > screwed. Yeah, I''m a little bitter about this. > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b at dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> > RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> > Pics: <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> > Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20061011/d155f246/attachment.html>
On Oct 11, 2006, at 7:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:> I''ve been running Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, I think it was, and > have had amazingly little trouble. Whereas I''m now sitting on $2k of > hardware that won''t do what I wanted it to do under Solaris, so it''s a > bit of a hot-button issue for me right now.Yes, but remember back in the days of Linux 0.99, the amount of PC hardware was nowhere near as varied as it is today. Integrated chipsets? A pipe dream! Aside from video card chips and proprietary pre-ATAPI CDROM interfaces, you didn''t have to reach far to find a driver which covered a given piece of hardware because when you got down to it, most hardware was the same. NE2000, anyone? Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris problems with my machine''s MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You''re unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software. When in that situation, one can be patient, be helpful, or go back to where one came from. /dale
On 10/11/06, Dale Ghent <daleg at elemental.org> wrote:> On Oct 11, 2006, at 7:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > > I''ve been running Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, I think it was, and > > have had amazingly little trouble. Whereas I''m now sitting on $2k of > > hardware that won''t do what I wanted it to do under Solaris, so it''s a > > bit of a hot-button issue for me right now. > > Yes, but remember back in the days of Linux 0.99, the amount of PC > hardware was nowhere near as varied as it is today. Integrated > chipsets? A pipe dream! Aside from video card chips and proprietary > pre-ATAPI CDROM interfaces, you didn''t have to reach far to find a > driver which covered a given piece of hardware because when you got > down to it, most hardware was the same. NE2000, anyone?Yep, I had NE2000 cards; still have some I think, but not in use anymore. Don''t forget SCSI controllers! Of course I was running SCSI disks in the Linux boxes back then (and the windows boxes). And multi-serial cards, and multi-modem cards. I had a 16-port fast serial card for the BBS (overkill, but 4 was nowhere near enough).> Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris > problems with my machine''s MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both > forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You''re > unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software.Yeah, and that''s probably a mistake. But I already own the hardware. What I''m pissed about, though, is that I tried fairly hard to determine not just what hardware probably worked, but *how paranoid I had to be* about hardware choice. I didn''t, I feel, get the necessary warning aobut the level of paranoia needed. That might have lead me to different hardware, or it might have lead me to giving up on Solaris, but it probably would have kept me away from the current unfortunate position. So one thing I''m trying to do to be helpful is to give people some idea of how paranoid they have to be. I now have stories of people who couldn''t run cards that worked for others because of wrong chipset versions, and my own system whose SATA subsystem doesn''t support hotswap is shown as fully supported in 32 and 64 bit mode by the install test tool.> When in that situation, one can be patient, be helpful, or go back to > where one came from.And in fact it seems fairly likely that Linux will have ZFS before Solaris has SATA drivers for me. And I now have so many 400GB drives that I no longer care about pool expandability for the next 2-3 years. "Helpful" would be nice of course; though I haven''t worked in device drivers for Unix seriously since the early 90s, and don''t know the current Solaris module and driver environment at all. And it would take many months to get anywhere, which doesn''t really fit the plan with that much money tied up in the hardware. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b at dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent <daleg at elemental.org> wrote:> Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris > problems with my machine''s MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both > forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You''re > unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software.Yeah, Solaris x86 is so bleeding edge that it doesn''t even support Sun''s own hardware! (x2100 SATA, which is now already in its second generation) -frank
On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:> On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent > <daleg at elemental.org> wrote: >> Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris >> problems with my machine''s MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both >> forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You''re >> unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software. > > Yeah, Solaris x86 is so bleeding edge that it doesn''t even support > Sun''s own hardware! (x2100 SATA, which is now already in its second > generation)You know, I''m really perplexed over that, especially given that the silicon image chips (AFAIK) aren''t in any Sun product and yet they have a SATA framework driver. /dale
Al Hopper wrote:>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Dana H. Myers wrote: > > > >>Al Hopper wrote: >> >> >> >>>Memory: DDR-400 - your choice but Kingston is always a safe bet. 2*512Mb >>>sticks for a starter, cost effective, system. 4*512Mb for a good long >>>term solution. >>> >>> >>Due to fan-out considerations, every BIOS I''ve seen will run DDR400 >>memory at 333MHz when connected to more than 1 DIMM-per-channel (I >>believe at AMD''s urging). >> >> > >Really!? That''s surprising. Is there a way to verify that on an Ultra20 >running Solaris 06/06? > > >I can''t remember which ones (I think it was the dual socket 940 Tyan boards) listed different memory limits for DDR400 and DD333 RAM. Ian
Zhiqi Ni - Sun China ERI (Beijing)
2006-Oct-12 07:37 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Hi Darren,
The Solaris Operating System for x86 Installation Check Tool 1.1 is
designed to report whether Solaris drivers are available for the devices
the tool detects on a x86 system and determine quickly whether your
system is likely to be able to install the Solaris OS. It is not
designed to make sure that the driver fully follows a certain
specification or it is bug free.
The Solaris Operating System for x86 Installation Check Tool 1.1 is
based on Solaris 10 Update 2 (06/06) kernel. The supported driver list
also generated from s10u2. In s10u2, the MCP55 build-in NIC was not
supported, so the tool reports it doesn''t support. It''s
possible that
nv_44 can detect that card, but snv is not officially released, so this
Installation Check Tool won''t support it.
I''d like to take this chance to introduce Hardware Certification
Test Suite. The Hardware Certification Test Suite (HCTS) is the
application and set of test suites that you can use to test your system
or component to verify that it is compatible with the Solaris OS on x86
platforms. HCTS testing enables you to certify server, desktop, and
laptop systems and to certify many different types of controllers. All
hardware that passes certification testing is eligible to be included in
the Solaris OS Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) as a certified system
or component. Please note HCTS certifies hardware, but not drivers. If
you are interest in this suite, go to
http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/index.html and have a try.
Best regards,
Ni, Zhiqi
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:24:50 -0700
> From: Darren.Reed at Sun.COM
> To: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net>
> CC: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> References:
> <5849d9130610101919u6fa8e0e1k9cb51702e55451f at mail.gmail.com>
> <5849738.1160551893413.JavaMail.Twebapp at oss-app1>
> <3f1760610110623l52b8fffse783bb266bc865db at mail.gmail.com>
> <452D4ECF.4090102 at Sun.COM>
> <34a783b20610111614q789f6d5bq1e3b236f97a17887 at mail.gmail.com>
>
>
>
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > On 10/11/06, Darren.Reed at sun.com <Darren.Reed at sun.com>
wrote:
> >
> >> There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported
by
> >> Solaris.
> >> One such tool can be found at:
> >> http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html
> >
> >
> > Beware of this tool. It reports "Y" for both 32-bit and
64-bit on the
> > nVidia MCP55 SATA controller -- but in the real world, it''s
supported
> > only in compatibility mode, and (fatal flaw for me) *it
doesn''t
> > support hot-swap with this controller*. So apparently even a clean
> > result from this utility isn''t a safe indication that the
device is
> > fully supported.
> >
> > Also, it says that the nVidia MCP55 ethernet is NOT supported in
> > either 32 or 64 bit, but actually nv_44 found the ethernet without any
> > trouble. Maybe that''s just that the support was extended
recently;
> > the install tool is based on S10 6/06.
>
>
> Driver support for Solaris Nevada is not the same as Solaris 10 Update 2,
> so it is not surprising to see these discrepencies.
>
> In some cases, getting Solaris to support a piece of hardware is as simple
> as running the update_drv command to tell it about a new PCI id (these
> change often and are central to driver support on all x86 platforms.)
>
> > The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as
> > a minefield.
>
>
> I''ve found this to be true for almost all open source platforms
where
> you''re trying to use something that hasn''t been
explicitly used and
> tested by the developers.
>
> Darren
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20061012/15eeab33/attachment.html>
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:36:28PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:> On 10/11/06, Darren.Reed at sun.com <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote: > > >> The more I learn about Solaris hardware support, the more I see it as > >> a minefield. > > > > > >I''ve found this to be true for almost all open source platforms where > >you''re trying to use something that hasn''t been explicitly used and > >tested by the developers. > > I''ve been running Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, I think it was, and > have had amazingly little trouble. Whereas I''m now sitting on $2k of > hardware that won''t do what I wanted it to do under Solaris, so it''s a > bit of a hot-button issue for me right now. I''ve never had to > consider Linux issues in selecting hardware (in fact I haven''t > selected hardware, my linux boxes have all been castoffs originally > purchased to run Windowsx)Perhaps that''s true of most Linux development machines too :) Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don''t understand it at all. -- Moliere -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20061012/7ccfa7b2/attachment.bin>
On 10/11/06, clockwork at sigsys.org <clockwork at sigsys.org> wrote:> So are there any pci-e SATA cards that are supported ? I was hoping to go > with a sempron64. Using old-pci seems like a waste. >I recently built a am2 sempron64 based zfs box. motherboard: ASUS M2NPV-MX cpu: amd am2 sempron64 2800+ The motherboard has 2 ide ports and 4 sata ports provided by nvidia mcp51. The ide and sata ports work in compatability mode. The onboard nge ethernet works. The motherboard has builtin geforce based video but I havent tested this. Im using 2 ide disks for mirrored boot/root and a 4 disk raidz on the sata ports. It has been running snv_47 for the last couple of weeks with no problems. Paul
On 11/10/06, Darren.Reed at sun.com <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote:> Dick Davies wrote: > > > On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert <peter.van.gemert at accenture.com> wrote:> >> You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to > >> find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10.> > I tried that myself - there really isn''t very much on there. > > I can''t believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know most of > > my kit isn''t on there), so I assume it isn''t updated that much...> There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by > Solaris. > One such tool can be found at: > http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.htmlThat doesn''t help with buying hardware though - I''m quite happy to buy hardware specifically for an OS (like I''ve always done for my BSD boxes and linux) but it''s annoying to be forced to do trial and error .> There is a process for submitting input back to Sun on driver testingI thought so (had that experience trying to get a variant of iprb added to device_aliases) and I can understand why, but an overly conservative HCL just feeds the ''Solaris supports hardly any hardware'' argument against adoption. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/
clockwork at sigsys.org
2006-Oct-12 12:33 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Yeah, I looked at the tool. Unfortunately it doesnt help at all with choosing what to buy. On 10/12/06, Dick Davies <rasputnik at gmail.com> wrote:> > On 11/10/06, Darren.Reed at sun.com <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote: > > Dick Davies wrote: > > > > > On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert <peter.van.gemert at accenture.com> wrote: > > > >> You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to > > >> find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. > > > > I tried that myself - there really isn''t very much on there. > > > I can''t believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know most > of > > > my kit isn''t on there), so I assume it isn''t updated that much... > > > There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by > > Solaris. > > One such tool can be found at: > > http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html > > That doesn''t help with buying hardware though - > I''m quite happy to buy hardware specifically for an OS > (like I''ve always done for my BSD boxes and linux) but it''s > annoying to be forced to do trial and error . > > > There is a process for submitting input back to Sun on driver testing > > I thought so (had that experience trying to get a variant of iprb added > to device_aliases) and I can understand why, but an overly conservative > HCL just feeds the ''Solaris supports hardly any hardware'' argument against > adoption. > > > -- > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns > http://number9.hellooperator.net/ > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20061012/e8256e52/attachment.html>
Erik Trimble
2006-Oct-12 13:35 UTC
[zfs-discuss] [Moving to solaris x86 Interest] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Dick Davies wrote:> On 11/10/06, Darren.Reed at sun.com <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote: >> Dick Davies wrote: >> >> > On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert <peter.van.gemert at accenture.com> wrote: >> >> You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to >> >> find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. >> > I tried that myself - there really isn''t very much on there. >> > I can''t believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know >> most of >> > my kit isn''t on there), so I assume it isn''t updated that much... >> There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by >> Solaris. >> One such tool can be found at: >> http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html > > That doesn''t help with buying hardware though - > I''m quite happy to buy hardware specifically for an OS > (like I''ve always done for my BSD boxes and linux) but it''s > annoying to be forced to do trial and error . > >> There is a process for submitting input back to Sun on driver testing > > I thought so (had that experience trying to get a variant of iprb added > to device_aliases) and I can understand why, but an overly conservative > HCL just feeds the ''Solaris supports hardly any hardware'' argument > against > adoption. > >Is there any chance that we can get a better maintained list of hardware devices supported under Nevada (OpenSolaris) on the OpenSolaris.org site somewhere? And have it actually updated quickly after developers putback driver support into NV? Given that Nevada has a much greater reach for drivers, the standard Solaris 10 HCL page on BigAdmin is pretty far behind. At least, a listing of the various chipsets supported (not necessarily specific motherboards/add-in cards, but at least the base chips) would be really nice for everyone. -Erik
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Ian Collins wrote:> Al Hopper wrote: > > >On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Dana H. Myers wrote: > > > > > > > >>Al Hopper wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Memory: DDR-400 - your choice but Kingston is always a safe bet. 2*512Mb > >>>sticks for a starter, cost effective, system. 4*512Mb for a good long > >>>term solution. > >>> > >>> > >>Due to fan-out considerations, every BIOS I''ve seen will run DDR400 > >>memory at 333MHz when connected to more than 1 DIMM-per-channel (I > >>believe at AMD''s urging). > >> > >> > > > >Really!? That''s surprising. Is there a way to verify that on an Ultra20 > >running Solaris 06/06? > > > > > > > I can''t remember which ones (I think it was the dual socket 940 Tyan > boards) listed different memory limits for DDR400 and DD333 RAM.[ .... Off Topic ..... ] Sure - the situation is quite different for dual socket Opteron motherboards - the layout can be quite a challenge for these. But we were talking about a single (939-pin) socket motherboard where the layout is much easier to do. Also - if you look at Opteron motherboards with 6 or more DIMM slots on a processor, the memory speed will (usually) go down to 333MHz for > 4 and <= 6 DIMMs and 266MHz for > 6 (populated) DIMMs. This issue (limited # of physical DIMM slots) was supposed to be resolved by now with FB-DIMMs. Not. The current generation are too expensive, run too hot and introduce high latencies. Details emerging on the upcoming quad core AMD (Barcelona) say that it''ll have two memory controllers, one for each set of 2 cores and the contoller will support both DDR3 and FB-DIMM memory parts. Should be interesting. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
this really bothers me too.. i was an early x2100 adopter and been waiting almost a year for this.. come on sun, please release a patch to fully support your own hardware on solaris 10!! On Oct 11, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:> On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent > <daleg at elemental.org> wrote: >> Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris >> problems with my machine''s MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both >> forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You''re >> unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software. > > Yeah, Solaris x86 is so bleeding edge that it doesn''t even support > Sun''s own hardware! (x2100 SATA, which is now already in its second > generation) > > -frank > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
Richard Elling - PAE
2006-Oct-17 17:59 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Dale Ghent wrote:> On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: >> On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent <daleg at elemental.org> >> wrote: >>> Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris >>> problems with my machine''s MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both >>> forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You''re >>> unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software. >> >> Yeah, Solaris x86 is so bleeding edge that it doesn''t even support >> Sun''s own hardware! (x2100 SATA, which is now already in its second >> generation) > > You know, I''m really perplexed over that, especially given that the > silicon image chips (AFAIK) aren''t in any Sun product and yet they have > a SATA framework driver.The realities of the hardware world strike again. Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation details from their competitors. If you want NVidia drivers for Solaris, then please let NVidia know. -- richard
On October 17, 2006 10:59:51 AM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE <Richard.Elling at Sun.COM> wrote:> Dale Ghent wrote: >> On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: >>> On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent <daleg at elemental.org> >>> wrote: >>>> Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris >>>> problems with my machine''s MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both >>>> forcedeth and nge croaked on it. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You''re >>>> unfortunately on the bleeding edge of hardware AND software. >>> >>> Yeah, Solaris x86 is so bleeding edge that it doesn''t even support >>> Sun''s own hardware! (x2100 SATA, which is now already in its second >>> generation) >> >> You know, I''m really perplexed over that, especially given that the >> silicon image chips (AFAIK) aren''t in any Sun product and yet they have >> a SATA framework driver. > > The realities of the hardware world strike again. > > Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, > and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. > NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and > keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, > largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation details > from their competitors. If you want NVidia drivers for Solaris, then > please let NVidia know.I''m sorry, but that''s ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as working. <http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml> We are not talking about a 3rd party add-on card, and we are not even talking about reselling of 3rd party products. Sun badges this as their own and should support it without customers having to (fruitlessly) ask the OEM to write a driver. I didn''t pay good money to Sun to have to then turn around and ask another party for support. BTW, my point about the x2100 was not actually about SATA support, it was really that Solaris x86 is not bleeding edge, and this hardware is not bleeding edge. Rather, Solaris x86 simply has poor hardware support. When it doesn''t support Sun''s own hardware, now in its SECOND generation, it seems difficult to claim otherwise. -frank
Richard Elling - PAE
2006-Oct-17 19:59 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Frank Cusack wrote:> On October 17, 2006 10:59:51 AM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE > <Richard.Elling at Sun.COM> wrote: >> The realities of the hardware world strike again. >> >> Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, >> and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. >> NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and >> keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, >> largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation details >> from their competitors. If you want NVidia drivers for Solaris, then >> please let NVidia know. > > I''m sorry, but that''s ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which > their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as > working. <http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml>What is your definition of "work"? NVidia MCPs work with SATA drives in IDE emulation mode under Solaris (thus I am able to compose this message on an NForce 410)> We are not talking about a 3rd party add-on card, and we are not even > talking about reselling of 3rd party products. Sun badges this as their > own and should support it without customers having to (fruitlessly) ask > the OEM to write a driver. I didn''t pay good money to Sun to have to > then turn around and ask another party for support. > > BTW, my point about the x2100 was not actually about SATA support, it was > really that Solaris x86 is not bleeding edge, and this hardware is not > bleeding edge. Rather, Solaris x86 simply has poor hardware support. > When it doesn''t support Sun''s own hardware, now in its SECOND generation, > it seems difficult to claim otherwise.I think we can all agree that more hardware, drivers, and features would be a good thing. But the reality is that everything changes continuously. The merry-go-round never stops, so sometimes you have to jump on. Incidentally, contrary to your assertions, (Dell|HP|Lenovo) doesn''t write NVidia drivers for MS-Windows either. Similarly, for Linux on the X2100, you can download the NVidia drivers directly from NVidia or via http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/downloads.jsp -- richard
Richard Elling - PAE schrieb:> Frank Cusack wrote: >> I''m sorry, but that''s ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which >> their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as >> working. <http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml> > > What is your definition of "work"? > NVidia MCPs work with SATA drives in IDE emulation mode under Solaris > (thus I am able to compose this message on an NForce 410)Quoted from the web page above: Internal disk Up to two hot-pluggable 3.5 inch SATA or SATA II, 250 GB or 500 GB 7200 RPM disks supported. "hot-pluggable" - you will find out only in a footnote (not on this specs page) that this is only supported with MS Windows. http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/os.jsp Still no mention of hot-pluggable not supported by Solaris. Maybe here http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/datasheet.pdf ... nope. Perhaps in the FAQ http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/faq.jsp ... hmm, no again. Hopefully in the product notes http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardware/docs/html/819-6594-11/ ... no again. I still haven''t found the document which states that hot-plugging of disks is not supported by Solaris. So one can normally assume that advertized hot-plugging of a Sun hardware is also supported on a Sun operating system - better not. Daniel
On October 17, 2006 12:59:26 PM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE <Richard.Elling at Sun.COM> wrote:> Frank Cusack wrote: >> On October 17, 2006 10:59:51 AM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE >> <Richard.Elling at Sun.COM> wrote: >>> The realities of the hardware world strike again. >>> >>> Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, >>> and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. >>> NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and >>> keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, >>> largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation >>> details from their competitors. If you want NVidia drivers for >>> Solaris, then please let NVidia know. >> >> I''m sorry, but that''s ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which >> their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as >> working. <http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml> > > What is your definition of "work"?The same as Sun''s. Quoting from the URL mentioned above: "Up to two hot-pluggable 3.5 inch SATA or SATA II, 250 GB or 500 GB 7200 RPM disks supported." There are no caveats or notes attached to that claim. BTW, there is still the IMPI vs IPMI typo on that page, if anyone is listening.> I think we can all agree that more hardware, drivers, and features would > be a good thing.yup. No argument, there will always be some new hardware that your favorite OS does not support or does not support completely, or that has bugs (either hardware or software) which frustrate you even when said hardware does "work".> But the reality is that everything changes continuously. > The merry-go-round never stops, so sometimes you have to jump on.Of course. But I''m not talking about the latest and greatest barely off the production line hardware. For example, I''ve had a devil of a time trying to get the LSI 3442-E working on Solaris SPARC (works on x86 with LSI driver). Sun''s driver supports the controller, but not completely (mostly because IMHO SAS support is immature, not because of hardware issues). Even though Sun has this exact same hardware as on onboard controller, I am not upset at Sun for not supporting the plugin PCI card version as well as they should. I am talking about hardware that is in its second generation that Sun does not support correctly, and which it advertises support for. I made a buying decision based on Sun''s advertisement of support (as did others). I am talking about hardware which Sun should, by all rights, support.> Incidentally, contrary to your assertions, (Dell|HP|Lenovo) doesn''t write > NVidia drivers for MS-Windows either.Contrary to which assertions? I never claimed anything about how NVidia hardware is or is not supported. My only claim is that *Sun* needs to put support for the SATA controller in Solaris, and *I* shouldn''t have to beg the OEM vendor (which Sun doesn''t even tell you who it is) to write a driver. I don''t really care if that support comes from NVidia (like it does for the gfx cards) or directly from Sun, as long as it is Sun that does the arm twisting.> Similarly, for Linux on the X2100, > you can download the NVidia drivers directly from NVidia or via > http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/downloads.jspWhich, I think, makes my point about Solaris and poor hardware support. -frank
Richard Elling - PAE
2006-Oct-17 20:45 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Ah, more terminology below... Daniel Rock wrote:> Richard Elling - PAE schrieb: >> Frank Cusack wrote: >>> I''m sorry, but that''s ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which >>> their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as >>> working. <http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/specs.xml> >> >> What is your definition of "work"? >> NVidia MCPs work with SATA drives in IDE emulation mode under Solaris >> (thus I am able to compose this message on an NForce 410) > > Quoted from the web page above: > > Internal disk > Up to two hot-pluggable 3.5 inch SATA or SATA II, > 250 GB or 500 GB 7200 RPM disks supported. > > > "hot-pluggable" - you will find out only in a footnote (not on this > specs page) that this is only supported with MS Windows. > > > http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/os.jsp>> Still no mention of hot-pluggable not supported by Solaris. > > Maybe here > http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/datasheet.pdf > ... nope. > > > Perhaps in the FAQ > http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/faq.jsp > ... hmm, no again. > > Hopefully in the product notes > http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardware/docs/html/819-6594-11/ > ... no again. > > > I still haven''t found the document which states that hot-plugging of > disks is not supported by Solaris.The operational definition of "hot pluggable" is: The ability to add or remove a system component while the system remains powered up, and without inducing any hardware errors. This does not imply anything about whether the component is automatically integrated into or detached from some higher level environment for use, nor that such an environment is necessarily suspended during the operation (although it may be.) For example, a hot pluggable processor/memory card may be added to a system without the need to power the chassis down and then back up. However, that does not mean it will be automatically utilized by the operating system using that chassis.> So one can normally assume that advertized hot-plugging of a Sun > hardware is also supported on a Sun operating system - better not.All SATA drives are hot-pluggable. There is no software component pertaining to hot-pluggable, so there is indeed an error on the page describing hot-pluggable as being a Windows-only feature. Perhaps you are looking for "hot-swappable" for which the operational definition is: The ability of a component to be added or removed from a system without interrupting the normal operation of the system. For Solaris, a device may be hot-swapped if there is nothing open on the device. Here lies the entrance of a rathole... -- richard
Richard Elling - PAE
2006-Oct-17 21:00 UTC
CAVEAT: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:> All SATA drives are hot-pluggable.The caveat here is that some enclosures will cause a shutdown when opened to access the drives. The drives themselves are hot-pluggable, but access may not possible without a shutdown. -- richard
Richard Elling - PAE schrieb:> The operational definition of "hot pluggable" is: > The ability to add or remove a system component while the > system remains powered up, and without inducing any hardware > errors. > > This does not imply anything about whether the component is > automatically integrated into or detached from some higher > level environment for use, nor that such an environment is > necessarily suspended during the operation (although it may > be.) For example, a hot pluggable processor/memory card may > be added to a system without the need to power the chassis > down and then back up. However, that does not mean it will > be automatically utilized by the operating system using that > chassis.Poor excuse
On October 17, 2006 1:45:45 PM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE <Richard.Elling at Sun.COM> wrote:> Ah, more terminology below... > > Daniel Rock wrote: >> I still haven''t found the document which states that hot-plugging of >> disks is not supported by Solaris. > > The operational definition of "hot pluggable" is: > The ability to add or remove a system component while the > system remains powered up, and without inducing any hardware > errors. > > This does not imply anything about whether the component is > automatically integrated into or detached from some higher > level environment for use, nor that such an environment is > necessarily suspended during the operation (although it may > be.) For example, a hot pluggable processor/memory card may > be added to a system without the need to power the chassis > down and then back up. However, that does not mean it will > be automatically utilized by the operating system using that > chassis. > >> So one can normally assume that advertized hot-plugging of a Sun >> hardware is also supported on a Sun operating system - better not. > > All SATA drives are hot-pluggable.No, not by that definition. If you start with 2 drives, remove one, it is no longer available to the system even when replaced. Similarly, if you boot with only 1 drive present, the 2nd drive will never be recognized even when "hot-plugged" later.> There is no software component pertaining to hot-pluggable, so thereI would say there is, based on your definition of hot-pluggable, since Windows supports it and Solaris doesn''t. Under Solaris, a drive cannot be added. I don''t mean automatically, I mean at all.> is indeed an error on the page describing hot-pluggable as being a > Windows-only feature. > > Perhaps you are looking for "hot-swappable" for which the operational > definition is: > The ability of a component to be added or removed from a system > without interrupting the normal operation of the system.I hope for Sun''s sake that you don''t represent them in this matter. At best, you are justifying deceptive advertising. -frank
On Oct 17, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:> The realities of the hardware world strike again. > > Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, > and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the > drivers. > NVidia, for example, has a history of developing their own drivers and > keeping them closed-source. This is their decision and, I speculate, > largely based on their desire to keep the hardware implementation > details > from their competitors.If you want to learn the source of mine, Frank''s and undoubtedly others'' ire, please refer to: http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardware/docs/html/ 819-3722-15/index.html#21924 This is the release notes of the X2100. The indication that hot-swap works under Windows (but not Linux or Solaris) seems to be an obvious indicator of it not being a hardware lacking, but a driver one (which would make sense, ata does not expect a device to go away). Further, if my memory isn''t playing tricks on me, when I received my first X2100 (around a month or two after they were first released) I recall an addition small yellow paper tucked in the accessories box separately from the standard documentation saying that hot-swap under Solaris would be supported in a future Solaris version. There''s also a bug open on this matter, and has been open for a long time. If this wasn''t feasible, I imagine the bug would be closed already with a WONTFIX.> If you want NVidia drivers for Solaris, then please let NVidia know.As an outsider, I don''t want to trivialize the happenings in the Sun- nVidia relationship, but look at nge(7d) as an example. Surely if that exists (closed source, and I assume it''s provided by nVidia in part or whole and under NDA) then a NV SATA driver shouldn''t be hard to obtain, even if it too ended up being closed-source (a la the Marvell driver). /dale
Richard Elling - PAE
2006-Oct-18 05:14 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
still more below... Frank Cusack wrote:> On October 17, 2006 1:45:45 PM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE > <Richard.Elling at Sun.COM> wrote: >> Ah, more terminology below... >> >> Daniel Rock wrote: >>> I still haven''t found the document which states that hot-plugging of >>> disks is not supported by Solaris. >> >> The operational definition of "hot pluggable" is: >> The ability to add or remove a system component while the >> system remains powered up, and without inducing any hardware >> errors. >> >> This does not imply anything about whether the component is >> automatically integrated into or detached from some higher >> level environment for use, nor that such an environment is >> necessarily suspended during the operation (although it may >> be.) For example, a hot pluggable processor/memory card may >> be added to a system without the need to power the chassis >> down and then back up. However, that does not mean it will >> be automatically utilized by the operating system using that >> chassis. >> >>> So one can normally assume that advertized hot-plugging of a Sun >>> hardware is also supported on a Sun operating system - better not. >> >> All SATA drives are hot-pluggable. > > No, not by that definition. If you start with 2 drives, remove one, > it is no longer available to the system even when replaced. Similarly, > if you boot with only 1 drive present, the 2nd drive will never be > recognized even when "hot-plugged" later.Disagree. We have been providing hot swap and hot plug computer systems for many years. For the most part, the documentation follows the definitions I''ve provided.>> There is no software component pertaining to hot-pluggable, so there > > I would say there is, based on your definition of hot-pluggable, since > Windows supports it and Solaris doesn''t. Under Solaris, a drive cannot > be added. I don''t mean automatically, I mean at all.I think I confused you here. See below.>> is indeed an error on the page describing hot-pluggable as being a >> Windows-only feature. >> >> Perhaps you are looking for "hot-swappable" for which the operational >> definition is: >> The ability of a component to be added or removed from a system >> without interrupting the normal operation of the system. > > I hope for Sun''s sake that you don''t represent them in this matter. At > best, you are justifying deceptive advertising.Typically, the hot-swap components are: + power supplies + fans Typically, the hot-plug components are: + CPU/memory boards + disks Where most people get confused is the expectation that a hot-plug device works like a hot-swap device. Sometimes they do, sometimes they require an interruption. Back to the NVidia comments, NVidia implements NVraid on the controllers used for the X2100 and X2200. There is a driver to interface with NVraid for Windows, but not for Solaris. For Solaris, you would disable NVraid and use the disks directly if you want to enable recovery from hot-plug events. In this case, it should work the same as a SCSI device, in as much as the device drivers support dynamic reconfiguration. I suspect that this is the source of the release notes confusion -- whoever wrote the release note does fully describe the situation in a manner consistent with other Sun products. CR 6483250 X2100 release notes inconsistent with Sun terminology, confuses customers -- richard
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 10:02:31PM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote:> > There''s also a bug open on this matter, and has been open for a long > time. If this wasn''t feasible, I imagine the bug would be closed > already with a WONTFIX. >FYI, the ARC case for integrating the nvidia ck804/mcp55 SATA HBA driver (PSARC 2006/501) was approved relatively recently. I would expect the driver to be available in Nevada soon, but I have no further information. You should follow up with the storage-discuss alias if you want more details. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
Richard Elling - PAE schrieb:> Where most people get confused is the expectation that a hot-plug > device works like a hot-swap device.Well, seems like you should also inform your documentation team about this definition: http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardware/docs/html/819-3722-15/index.html#21924 SATA hot plug is supported only for the Windows XP Operating System (OS). Daniel