So, I see Sun finally updated the Thumper, and it appears they''re now using a PCI-E backplane. Anyone happen to know what the chipset is? Any chance we''ll see an 8-port PCI-E SATA card finally?? "The new Sun Fire X4540 server uses PCI Express IO technology for more than triple the system IO-to-network bandwidth." http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/ --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080709/6aa5b5e1/attachment.html>
The X4540 uses on-board LSI SAS controllers (C1068E). - Eric On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 02:59:26PM -0500, Tim wrote:> So, I see Sun finally updated the Thumper, and it appears they''re now using > a PCI-E backplane. Anyone happen to know what the chipset is? Any chance > we''ll see an 8-port PCI-E SATA card finally?? > > "The new Sun Fire X4540 server uses PCI Express IO technology for more than > triple the system IO-to-network bandwidth." > > http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/ > > --Tim> _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss-- Eric Schrock, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Eric Schrock <eric.schrock at sun.com> wrote:> The X4540 uses on-board LSI SAS controllers (C1068E). > > - Eric > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 02:59:26PM -0500, Tim wrote: > > So, I see Sun finally updated the Thumper, and it appears they''re now > using > > a PCI-E backplane. Anyone happen to know what the chipset is? Any > chance > > we''ll see an 8-port PCI-E SATA card finally?? > > > > "The new Sun Fire X4540 server uses PCI Express IO technology for more > than > > triple the system IO-to-network bandwidth." > > > > http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/ > > > > --Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > > zfs-discuss mailing list > > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > > -- > Eric Schrock, Fishworks > http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock >Perfect. Which means good ol'' supermicro would come through :) WOHOO! AOC-USAS-L8i http://www.supermicro.com/products/accessories/addon/AOC-USAS-L8i.cfm --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080709/697877a3/attachment.html>
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Tim <tim at tcsac.net> wrote:> So, I see Sun finally updated the Thumper, and it appears they''re now using > a PCI-E backplane. Anyone happen to know what the chipset is? Any chance > we''ll see an 8-port PCI-E SATA card finally?? > > "The new Sun Fire X4540 server uses PCI Express IO technology for more than > triple the system IO-to-network bandwidth." > > http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/Any word on why PCI-Express was not extended to the expansion slots? I put PCI-Express cards in every other server that I connect to 10 gigabit Ethernet or the SAN (FC tape drives). -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
Figures... I just bought 3 x4500s.... From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:59 PM To: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] X4540 So, I see Sun finally updated the Thumper, and it appears they''re now using a PCI-E backplane. Anyone happen to know what the chipset is? Any chance we''ll see an 8-port PCI-E SATA card finally?? "The new Sun Fire X4540 server uses PCI Express IO technology for more than triple the system IO-to-network bandwidth." http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/ --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080709/e8cc0a44/attachment.html>
Tim wrote:> So, I see Sun finally updated the Thumper, and it appears they''re now > using a PCI-E backplane. Anyone happen to know what the chipset is? > Any chance we''ll see an 8-port PCI-E SATA card finally??One NVidia MCP-55 and two NVidia IO-55s replace the thumper''s AMD-8132 HT to PCI-X bridges. The new configuration is such that the expandable PCI-E slots have their own IO-55. The MCP-55 and one IO-55 connect to 3 LSI 1068E and provide 2x GbE each. This should be a better balance than the thumper''s configuration. LSI 1068E SAS/SATA controllers replace thumper''s Marvell SAS/SATA controllers. You might recognize the LSI 1068, and its smaller cousin, the 1064, as being used in many other Sun servers from the T1000 to the M9000. 8-port PCI-E SAS/SATA card is supported for additional expansion, such as a J4500 (the JBOD-only version) http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/sas/specs.xml The best news, for many folks, is that you can boot from an (externally pluggable) CF card, so that you don''t have to burn two disks for the OS. I think we have solved many of the deficiencies noted in the thumper, including more CPU and memory capacity. Please let us know what you think :-) -- richard> > "The new Sun Fire X4540 server uses PCI Express IO technology for more > than triple the system IO-to-network bandwidth." > > http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/ > > --Tim > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote:> 8-port PCI-E SAS/SATA card is supported for additional > expansion, such as a J4500 (the JBOD-only version) > http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/sas/specs.xmlBased upon my previous message, this message, and Jeorg Moellenkamp''s blog entry[1], I think that the hardware specifications page[2] needs to be updated so that the expansion slots say PCI-Express rather than PCI-X. 1. http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/4605-New-storage-from-Sun-J420044004500-and-X4540-Storage-Server.html 2. http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/specs.xml -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:19:53PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:> > Any word on why PCI-Express was not extended to the expansion slots? > I put PCI-Express cards in every other server that I connect to 10 > gigabit Ethernet or the SAN (FC tape drives). >The webpage is incorrect. There are three 8x PCI-E half-height slots on the X4540. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
Yes, thanks for catching this. I''m sure it is just a copy-n-paste mistake. I''ve alerted product manager to get it fixed. -- richard Mike Gerdts wrote:> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote: > >> 8-port PCI-E SAS/SATA card is supported for additional >> expansion, such as a J4500 (the JBOD-only version) >> http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/sas/specs.xml >> > > Based upon my previous message, this message, and Jeorg Moellenkamp''s > blog entry[1], I think that the hardware specifications page[2] needs > to be updated so that the expansion slots say PCI-Express rather than > PCI-X. > > 1. http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/4605-New-storage-from-Sun-J420044004500-and-X4540-Storage-Server.html > 2. http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/specs.xml > >
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:35:44PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote: > > 8-port PCI-E SAS/SATA card is supported for additional > > expansion, such as a J4500 (the JBOD-only version) > > http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/sas/specs.xml > > Based upon my previous message, this message, and Jeorg Moellenkamp''s > blog entry[1], I think that the hardware specifications page[2] needs > to be updated so that the expansion slots say PCI-Express rather than > PCI-X. > > 1. http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/4605-New-storage-from-Sun-J420044004500-and-X4540-Storage-Server.html > 2. http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/specs.xmlYep, the copied the thumper specs by mistake, including reserving one of the slots for the VGA port. On the X4540 this is builtin, leaving all 3 slots open for expansion. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Eric Schrock <eric.schrock at sun.com> wrote:> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:35:44PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> > wrote: > > > 8-port PCI-E SAS/SATA card is supported for additional > > > expansion, such as a J4500 (the JBOD-only version) > > > http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/sas/specs.xml > > > > Based upon my previous message, this message, and Jeorg Moellenkamp''s > > blog entry[1], I think that the hardware specifications page[2] needs > > to be updated so that the expansion slots say PCI-Express rather than > > PCI-X. > > > > 1. > http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/4605-New-storage-from-Sun-J420044004500-and-X4540-Storage-Server.html > > 2. http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/specs.xml > > Yep, the copied the thumper specs by mistake, including reserving one of > the slots for the VGA port. On the X4540 this is builtin, leaving all 3 > slots open for expansion. > > - Eric > > -- > Eric Schrock, Fishworks > http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >Is the 4540 still running a rageXL? I find that somewhat humorous if it''s an Nvidia chipset with ATI video :) --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080709/1e07d09a/attachment.html>
Might also want to have them talk to byteandswitch. * **"We went to the next-generation Intel processors [and] we have used the latest generation of our Solaris ZFS software," he explains, adding that the J4000 JBODs can also be connected to the X4540.* Either the 4540 is using XEON''s now, someone was misquoted, or someone was confused :) http://www.byteandswitch.com/document.asp?doc_id=158533&WT.svl=news1_1 --Tim On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote:> Yes, thanks for catching this. I''m sure it is just a copy-n-paste > mistake. I''ve alerted product manager to get it fixed. > -- richard > > > Mike Gerdts wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> 8-port PCI-E SAS/SATA card is supported for additional >>> expansion, such as a J4500 (the JBOD-only version) >>> http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/sas/specs.xml >>> >>> >> >> Based upon my previous message, this message, and Jeorg Moellenkamp''s >> blog entry[1], I think that the hardware specifications page[2] needs >> to be updated so that the expansion slots say PCI-Express rather than >> PCI-X. >> >> 1. >> http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/4605-New-storage-from-Sun-J420044004500-and-X4540-Storage-Server.html >> 2. http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/specs.xml >> >> >> > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080709/fb499449/attachment.html>
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:52:27PM -0500, Tim wrote:> > Is the 4540 still running a rageXL? I find that somewhat humorous if it''s > an Nvidia chipset with ATI video :) >According to SMBIOS there is an on-board device of type "AST2000 VGA". - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
Tim wrote:> > Is the 4540 still running a rageXL? I find that somewhat humorous if > it''s an Nvidia chipset with ATI video :)Yes, it is part of the chip which handles the management interface. I don''t find this to be a contradiction, though. AMD bought ATI and we''re using AMD Quad-core CPUs. -- richard
Eric Schrock wrote:> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:52:27PM -0500, Tim wrote: > >> Is the 4540 still running a rageXL? I find that somewhat humorous if it''s >> an Nvidia chipset with ATI video :) >> >> > > According to SMBIOS there is an on-board device of type "AST2000 VGA". >Yes, I think I found another copy-n-paste error in some docs :-( It does appear to be an AST2000, something like: http://www.aspeedtech.com/ast2000.html -- richard
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote:> Tim wrote: >> So, I see Sun finally updated the Thumper, and it appears they''re now >> using a PCI-E backplane. Anyone happen to know what the chipset is? >> Any chance we''ll see an 8-port PCI-E SATA card finally?? > > One NVidia MCP-55 and two NVidia IO-55s replace the thumper''s > AMD-8132 HT to PCI-X bridges. The new configuration is such > that the expandable PCI-E slots have their own IO-55. The > MCP-55 and one IO-55 connect to 3 LSI 1068E and provide > 2x GbE each. This should be a better balance than the thumper''s > configuration. > > LSI 1068E SAS/SATA controllers replace thumper''s Marvell > SAS/SATA controllers. You might recognize the LSI 1068, > and its smaller cousin, the 1064, as being used in many other > Sun servers from the T1000 to the M9000. > > 8-port PCI-E SAS/SATA card is supported for additional > expansion, such as a J4500 (the JBOD-only version) > http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/sas/specs.xml > > The best news, for many folks, is that you can boot from an > (externally pluggable) CF card, so that you don''t have to burn > two disks for the OS. > > I think we have solved many of the deficiencies noted in the > thumper, including more CPU and memory capacity. Please > let us know what you think :-)Not that I''m in the market for one - but I think a version with (possibly fewer) 15k RPM SAS disks would be a best seller - especially for applications that require more IOPS. Like RDBMS for example. And yes, I realize that one could install a SAS card into the 4540 and attach it to one of the SAS based J4nnn boxes - but that''s not the same physical density that a 4540 with SAS disks would offer. Or even a mixture of SATA and SAS drives.... And it would be great if Sun would OEM the Micro Memory (aka vmetro) cards. Obviously its only a question of time before Sun will bring its own RAM/flash cards to the market - but an OEM deal would make product available now and probably won''t compete with what Sun has in mind (based entirely on my own crystal ball gazing). We all know how big a win this is for NFS shares! Congrats to Sun, Team ZFS and open storage. The new x45xx and J4xxx boxes are *great* additions to Suns product line.> -- richard > > >> >> "The new Sun Fire X4540 server uses PCI Express IO technology for more >> than triple the system IO-to-network bandwidth." >> >> http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4540/ >> >> --TimRegards, -- Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc,Plano,TX al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/
I think it''s a cracking upgrade Richard. I was hoping Sun would do something like this, so it''s great to see it arrive. As others have said though, I think Sun are missing a trick by not working with Vmetro or Fusion-io to add nvram cards to the range now. In particular, if Sun were to work with Fusion-io and add Solaris drivers for the ioDrive, you''d be in a position right now to offer a 48TB server with 64GB of read cache, and 80GB of write cache You could even offer the same card on the smaller x4240. Can you imagine how well those machines would work as NFS servers? Either one would make a superb NFS storage platform for VMware: You''ve got incredible performance, ZFS snapshots for backups, and ZFS send/receive to replicate the data elsewhere. NetApp and EMC charge a small fortune for a NAS that can do all that, and they don''t offer anywhere near that amount of fast cache. Both servers would take Infiniband too, which is dirt cheap these days at $125 a card, is supported by VMware, and particularly on the smaller server, is way faster than anything EMC or NetApp offer. As a NFS storage platform, you''d be beating EMC and NetApp on price, spindle count, features and performance. I really hope somebody at Sun considers this, and thinks about expanding the "What can you do with an x4540" section on the website to include VMware. Ross This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Ross <myxiplx at hotmail.com> wrote:> I think it''s a cracking upgrade Richard. I was hoping Sun would do > something like this, so it''s great to see it arrive. > > As others have said though, I think Sun are missing a trick by not working > with Vmetro or Fusion-io to add nvram cards to the range now. In > particular, if Sun were to work with Fusion-io and add Solaris drivers for > the ioDrive, you''d be in a position right now to offer a 48TB server with > 64GB of read cache, and 80GB of write cache > > You could even offer the same card on the smaller x4240. Can you imagine > how well those machines would work as NFS servers? Either one would make a > superb NFS storage platform for VMware: You''ve got incredible performance, > ZFS snapshots for backups, and ZFS send/receive to replicate the data > elsewhere. NetApp and EMC charge a small fortune for a NAS that can do all > that, and they don''t offer anywhere near that amount of fast cache. Both > servers would take Infiniband too, which is dirt cheap these days at $125 a > card, is supported by VMware, and particularly on the smaller server, is way > faster than anything EMC or NetApp offer. > > As a NFS storage platform, you''d be beating EMC and NetApp on price, > spindle count, features and performance. I really hope somebody at Sun > considers this, and thinks about expanding the "What can you do with an > x4540" section on the website to include VMware. > > Ross > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >I believe NetApp has several (valid) patents in this area that may be preventing Sun from doing this. Perhaps that''s on the table for cross-licensing negotiation talks? --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080710/cf892af4/attachment.html>
Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot, or using nvram with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing for years) would just be rediculous. This is nothing more than cache, and even with the American patent system I''d have though it hard to get that past the obviousness test. This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Ross wrote:> Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot, or > using nvram with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing for > years) would just be rediculous. This is nothing more than cache, > and even with the American patent system I''d have though it hard to > get that past the obviousness test.How quickly they forget. Take a look at the Prestoserve User''s Guide for a refresher... http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/801-4896-11
Spencer Shepler wrote:> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Ross wrote: > > >> Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot, or >> using nvram with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing for >> years) would just be rediculous. This is nothing more than cache, >> and even with the American patent system I''d have though it hard to >> get that past the obviousness test. >> > > How quickly they forget. > > Take a look at the Prestoserve User''s Guide for a refresher... > > http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/801-4896-11Or Fast Write Cache http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/fast-write-cache2.0
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Ross wrote:> > As a NFS storage platform, you''d be beating EMC and NetApp on price, > spindle count, features and performance. I really hope somebody at > Sun considers this, and thinks about expanding the "What can you do > with an x4540" section on the website to include VMware.I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already undercutting much of the rest of its product line. These minor updates would allow the X4540 to compete against much more expensive StorageTek SAN hardware. How can other products remain profitable when competing against such a star performer? Bob =====================================Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Ross wrote: > > > > As a NFS storage platform, you''d be beating EMC and NetApp on price, > > spindle count, features and performance. I really hope somebody at > > Sun considers this, and thinks about expanding the "What can you do > > with an x4540" section on the website to include VMware. > > I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already undercutting much of > the rest of its product line. These minor updates would allow the > X4540 to compete against much more expensive StorageTek SAN hardware. > How can other products remain profitable when competing against such a > star performer? > > Bob > =====================================> Bob Friesenhahn > bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >Because at the end of the day, the x4540 still isn''t *there* (and probably never will be) for 24/7 SAN/LUN access. AFAIK, nothing in the storagetek line-up is worth a damn as far as NAS goes that would compete with this. I honestly don''t believe anyone looking at a home-grown x4540 is TRULY in the market for a high end STK SAN anyways. It''s the same reason you don''t see HDS or EMC rushing to adjust the price of the SYM or USP-V based on Sun releasing the thumpers. --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080710/c224271c/attachment.html>
On Jul 10, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:> > I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already undercutting much of > the rest of its product line.a) Failure to do so just means that someone else does, and wins the customer. b) A lot of "enterprise class" infrastructure wonks are very, very conservative. They''ll want to continue with the architecture they have for a long time to come. I suspect that the real "loss" is the potential to convert up and coming shops to the premium storage ... but that would have been an uphill battle anyway, so moving that class of consumer into "open storage" is an easier sell anyway. -- Keith H. Bierman khbkhb at gmail.com | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 <speaking for myself*> Copyright 2008
Torrey McMahon wrote:> Spencer Shepler wrote: > >> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Ross wrote: >> >> >> >>> Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot, or >>> using nvram with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing for >>> years) would just be rediculous. This is nothing more than cache, >>> and even with the American patent system I''d have though it hard to >>> get that past the obviousness test. >>> >>> >> How quickly they forget. >> >> Take a look at the Prestoserve User''s Guide for a refresher... >> >> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/801-4896-11 >> > > Or Fast Write Cache > > http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/fast-write-cache2.0 >Yeah, the J-shaped scar just below my right shoulder blade... For the benefit of the alias, these sorts of products have a very limited market because they store state inside the server and use batteries. RAS guys hate batteries, especially those which are sitting on non-hot-pluggable I/O cards. While there are some specific cards which do allow hardware assisted remote replication (a previous Sun technology called "reflective memory" as used by VAXclusters) most of the issues are with serviceability and not availability. It is really bad juju to leave state in the wrong place during a service event. Where I think the jury is deadlocked is whether these are actually faster than RAID cards like http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/raid/ But from a performability perspective, the question is whether or not such cards perform significantly better than SSDs? Thoughts? -- richard
Richard Elling wrote:> Torrey McMahon wrote: >> Spencer Shepler wrote: >> >>> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Ross wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Oh god, I hope not. A patent on fitting a card in a PCI-E slot, >>>> or using nvram with RAID (which raid controllers have been doing >>>> for years) would just be rediculous. This is nothing more than >>>> cache, and even with the American patent system I''d have though it >>>> hard to get that past the obviousness test. >>>> >>> How quickly they forget. >>> >>> Take a look at the Prestoserve User''s Guide for a refresher... >>> >>> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/801-4896-11 >>> >> >> Or Fast Write Cache >> >> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/fast-write-cache2.0 >> > > Yeah, the J-shaped scar just below my right shoulder blade... > > For the benefit of the alias, these sorts of products have a very limited > market because they store state inside the server and use batteries. > RAS guys hate batteries, especially those which are sitting on > non-hot-pluggable I/O cards. While there are some specific cards > which do allow hardware assisted remote replication (a previous > Sun technology called "reflective memory" as used by VAXclusters) > most of the issues are with serviceability and not availability. It > is really bad juju to leave state in the wrong place during a service > event. > > Where I think the jury is deadlocked is whether these are actually > faster than RAID cards like > http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/raid/ > > But from a performability perspective, the question is whether or > not such cards perform significantly better than SSDs? Thoughts?In the past we saw some good performance gains with on server caching of the i/o even if it went to a large array with lots of cache down the road. Mr. Sneed had some numbers from back in the day but for some workloads there was quite the impact by ack''ing writes and coalescing them on the host NVRAM before sending them to the array. You cut the i/o time down for the app *and* the i/o you do send is a lot less bursty. (Of course if you filled up the memory on the card you''d hit other issues.....)
Well, I''m not holding out much hope of Sun working with these suppliers any time soon. I asked Vmetro why they don''t work with Sun considering how well ZFS seems to fit with their products, and this was the reply I got: "Micro Memory has a long history of working with Sun, and I worked at Sun for almost 10 years developing Solaris x86. We have tried to get various Sun Product Managers responsible for these servers (Thumper) to work with us on this and they have said no. We have tried to get Sun''s integration group to work with us (where they would integrate upon customer request, charging the customer for integration and support), and they have also said no. They don''t feel there is an adequate business case to justify it as all of the opportunities are so small." This is an incredibly frustrating response for all the Sun customers who could have really benefited from these cards. Why develop the ability to move the ZIL to nvram devices, benchmark the Thumper on one of them, and then refuse to work with the manufacturer to offer the card to customers? I appreciate Sun are working on their own flash memory solutions, but surely it''s to their benefit and ours to take advantage of the technology already on the market with years of tried & tested use behind it? This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Jul 10, 2008, at 12:42, Tim wrote:> It''s the same reason you don''t see HDS or EMC rushing to adjust the > price of > the SYM or USP-V based on Sun releasing the thumpers.No one ever got fired for buying EMC/HDS/NTAP.... I know my company has "corporate standards" for various aspects of IT, and if someone purchases something out side of that (which is frowned upon) then you''re on your own. If you open a service / trouble ticket for it they''ll just close it saying "not supported".
Bob Friesenhahn> I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already > undercutting much of > the rest of its product line. These minor updates would allow the > X4540 to compete against much more expensive StorageTek SAN hardware.Assuming, of course that the requirements for the more expensive SAN hardware don''t include, for example, surviving a controller or motherboard failure (or gracefully a RAM chip failure) without requiring an extensive downtime for replacement, or other extended downtime because there''s only 1 set of chips that can talk to those disks. "Real" SAN storage is dual-ported to dual controller nodes so that you can replace a motherboard without taking down access to the disk. Or install a new OS version without waiting for the system to POST.> How can other products remain profitable when competing > against such a > star performer?Features. RAS. Simplicity. Corporate Inertia (having storage admins who don''t know OpenSolaris). Executive outings with StorageTek-logo''d golfballs. The last 2 aren''t something I''d build a business case around, but they''re a reality. --Joe
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Moore, Joe <joe.moore at siemens.com> wrote:> > > Features. RAS. Simplicity. Corporate Inertia (having storage admins > who don''t know OpenSolaris). Executive outings with StorageTek-logo''d > golfballs. The last 2 aren''t something I''d build a business case > around, but they''re a reality. > > --Joe > >Why not? There''s several in the market today whom I suspect have done just that :D I won''t name names, but for anyone in the industry I doubt I have to. --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080711/1f0933bc/attachment.html>
Richard Elling wrote:> > The best news, for many folks, is that you can boot from an > (externally pluggable) CF card, so that you don''t have to burn > two disks for the OS. >Can these be mirrored? I''ve been bitten by these cards failing (in a camera). Ian
Ian Collins wrote:> Richard Elling wrote: > >> The best news, for many folks, is that you can boot from an >> (externally pluggable) CF card, so that you don''t have to burn >> two disks for the OS. >> >> > Can these be mirrored? I''ve been bitten by these cards failing (in a > camera). >Yes, of course. But there is only one CF slot. If you are worried about data loss, zfs set copies=2. If you are worried about CF loss, mirror to something else. -- richard
> Well, I''m not holding out much hope of Sun working > with these suppliers any time soon. I asked Vmetro > why they don''t work with Sun considering how well ZFS > seems to fit with their products, and this was the > reply I got: > > "Micro Memory has a long history of working with Sun, > and I worked at Sun for almost 10 years developing > Solaris x86. We have tried to get various Sun > Product Managers responsible for these servers > (Thumper) to work with us on this and they have said > no. We have tried to get Sun''s integration group to > work with us (where they would integrate upon > customer request, charging the customer for > integration and support), and they have also said no. > They don''t feel there is an adequate business case > to justify it as all of the opportunities are so > small." > > This is an incredibly frustrating response for all > the Sun customers who could have really benefited > from these cards. Why develop the ability to move > the ZIL to nvram devices, benchmark the Thumper on > one of them, and then refuse to work with the > manufacturer to offer the card to customers?May be post this to Jonathan''s blog. When the stock is down so much, it''s bad that some guy somewhere is not doing his/her job properly of providing something the customers want. This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Jul 11, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Richard Elling wrote:> > Yes, of course. But there is only one CF slot.Cool coincidence that the following article on CF cards and DMA transfers was posted to /. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/12/1851251 I take it that Sun''s going ship/sell OEM''d CF cards of some sort for Loki. Hopefully they''re ones that don''t crap out on DMA transfers. /dale
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Moore, Joe wrote:> Bob Friesenhahn >> I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already undercutting much >> of the rest of its product line. These minor updates would allow >> the X4540 to compete against much more expensive StorageTek SAN >> hardware. > > Assuming, of course that the requirements for the more expensive SAN > hardware don''t include, for example, surviving a controller or > motherboard failure (or gracefully a RAM chip failure) without requiring > an extensive downtime for replacement, or other extended downtime > because there''s only 1 set of chips that can talk to those disks.I am totally with you here since today I can not access my storage pool due to server motherboard failure and I don''t know when Sun will successfully fix it. Since I use an external RAID array for my file server, there would not be so much hardship except that I do not have a spare file server available. Bob
Are right that X4500 have single point of failure but keeping a spare server module is not that expensive. As there are no cables , replacing will tkae a few seconds and after the boot everything will be ok. Besides cluster support for JBOD''s will come shortly, that setup will eleminate SPOF Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +902123352222 Email mertol.ozyoney at sun.com -----Original Message----- From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:58 AM To: Moore, Joe Cc: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] X4540 On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Moore, Joe wrote:> Bob Friesenhahn >> I expect that Sun is realizing that it is already undercutting much >> of the rest of its product line. These minor updates would allow >> the X4540 to compete against much more expensive StorageTek SAN >> hardware. > > Assuming, of course that the requirements for the more expensive SAN > hardware don''t include, for example, surviving a controller or > motherboard failure (or gracefully a RAM chip failure) without requiring > an extensive downtime for replacement, or other extended downtime > because there''s only 1 set of chips that can talk to those disks.I am totally with you here since today I can not access my storage pool due to server motherboard failure and I don''t know when Sun will successfully fix it. Since I use an external RAID array for my file server, there would not be so much hardship except that I do not have a spare file server available. Bob _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss