I''m not sure if this is the right place for the question or not, but I''ll throw it out there anyways. Does anyone know, if you create your pool(s) with a system running fishworks, can that pool later be imported by a standard solaris system? IE: If for some reason the head running fishworks were to go away, could I attach the JBOD/disks to a system running snv/mainline solaris/whatever, and import the pool to get at the data? Or is the zfs underneath fishworks proprietary as well? --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20081117/e9eb7bda/attachment.html>
>I''m not sure if this is the right place for the question or not, but I''ll >throw it out there anyways. Does anyone know, if you create your pool(s) >with a system running fishworks, can that pool later be imported by a >standard solaris system? IE: If for some reason the head running fishworks >were to go away, could I attach the JBOD/disks to a system running >snv/mainline solaris/whatever, and import the pool to get at the data? Or >is the zfs underneath fishworks proprietary as well?The idea of making a "Application Toolkit" is - using standard (Open)Solaris - add the toolkit For us, this is to get away from the multiple OS you would either support. Think, e.g., of the enormous number of CISCO IOS version. So, in theory, it would be the same... (But I don''t work there, and they may have branched out; but I doubt it; a spare branch is expensive) Casper
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:35:38PM -0600, Tim wrote:> I''m not sure if this is the right place for the question or not, but I''ll > throw it out there anyways. Does anyone know, if you create your pool(s) > with a system running fishworks, can that pool later be imported by a > standard solaris system? IE: If for some reason the head running fishworks > were to go away, could I attach the JBOD/disks to a system running > snv/mainline solaris/whatever, and import the pool to get at the data? Or > is the zfs underneath fishworks proprietary as well?Yes, the on-disk format is compatible. You cannot, however, do the reverse. Importing arbitrary Solaris pools (or former Fishworks pools) into the Fishworks environment is not supported. While the on-disk format is the same, the dataset hierarchy is specific to the appliance, and properties much be configured in an implementation-defined way for the software to function correctly. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:35:38PM -0600, Tim wrote:> I''m not sure if this is the right place for the question or not, but I''ll > throw it out there anyways. Does anyone know, if you create your pool(s) > with a system running fishworks, can that pool later be imported by a > standard solaris system? IE: If for some reason the head running fishworks > were to go away, could I attach the JBOD/disks to a system running > snv/mainline solaris/whatever, and import the pool to get at the data? Or > is the zfs underneath fishworks proprietary as well?Yes. The Sun Storage 7000 Series uses the same ZFS that''s in OpenSolaris today. A pool created on the appliance could potentially be imported on an OpenSolaris system; that is, of course, not explicitly supported in the service contract. Adam -- Adam Leventhal, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/ahl
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Eric Schrock <eric.schrock at sun.com> wrote:> Yes, the on-disk format is compatible. You cannot, however, do the > reverse. Importing arbitrary Solaris pools (or former Fishworks pools) > into the Fishworks environment is not supported. While the on-disk > format is the same, the dataset hierarchy is specific to the appliance, > and properties much be configured in an implementation-defined way for > the software to function correctly. > > - Eric > > -- > Eric Schrock, Fishworks > http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock >So that leads me to my second question then: If I buy a 7410 with a single JBOD attached, can I easily attach a second JBOD and grow the pool? It would seem the logical answer is "yes", since growing the pool would just require adding an/many additional vdev''s. Some of the literature seems to suggest otherwise though. I can totally understand the issue with adding one, or just a few additional disks to the pool, but if you were to double the number of disks, in theory, that should be fairly seamless. Thanks, --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20081117/9eefa575/attachment.html>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:07:12PM -0600, Tim wrote:> > So that leads me to my second question then: If I buy a 7410 with a single > JBOD attached, can I easily attach a second JBOD and grow the pool? It > would seem the logical answer is "yes", since growing the pool would just > require adding an/many additional vdev''s. Some of the literature seems to > suggest otherwise though. I can totally understand the issue with adding > one, or just a few additional disks to the pool, but if you were to double > the number of disks, in theory, that should be fairly seamless.Yes, we support adding whole or half JBODs. We do not support adding individual disks or arbitrarily populated JBODs. If you want the ability to survive JBOD failure ("NSPF" in our storage config terms), you must add JBODs in groups (i.e. two at a time in a mirrored config) so that we can mirror/RAID across them. Even without NSPF, we have redundant cables, HBAs, power supplies, and controllers, so this is only required if you are worried about disk backplane failure (a very rare failure mode). Can you point to the literature that suggests this is not possible? - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Eric Schrock <eric.schrock at sun.com> wrote:> > > Yes, we support adding whole or half JBODs. We do not support adding > individual disks or arbitrarily populated JBODs. If you want the > ability to survive JBOD failure ("NSPF" in our storage config terms), > you must add JBODs in groups (i.e. two at a time in a mirrored config) > so that we can mirror/RAID across them. Even without NSPF, we have > redundant cables, HBAs, power supplies, and controllers, so this is only > required if you are worried about disk backplane failure (a very rare > failure mode). > > Can you point to the literature that suggests this is not possible? > > - Eric > > -- > Eric Schrock, Fishworks > http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock >Actually I think it was your blog :D Specifically this post: http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock/entry/fishworks_storage_configuration And this passage: "If there is a broken or missing disk, we don''t let you proceed without explicit confirmation. The reason we do this is that once the storage pool is configured, there is no way to add those disks to the pool without changing the RAS and performance characteristics you specified during configuration." The post as a whole makes it unclear if you are able to add more disk in the future or not without changing your RAS/performance. That specific example, after re-reading, appears to be referring to the "one broken disk(s)". I guess everything I''ve read about fishworks talks about "making your choice" at first configuration, and doesn''t really make it clear what the process or requirements are for adding disk in the future. Knowing zfs, I made the assumption that it was possible via means like you''ve described above. If I had no exposure to zfs though, it might be a bit less clear, and I guess in this case, I wasn''t 100% positive even with the background I have. If I''ve missed something, it wouldn''t be the first time ADD has gotten the best of me, so I apologize. Feel free to correct as you see fit. Thanks for the help, --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20081117/39027ba1/attachment.html>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:38:29PM -0600, Tim wrote:> > And this passage: > "If there is a broken or missing disk, we don''t let you proceed without > explicit confirmation. The reason we do this is that once the storage pool > is configured, there is no way to add those disks to the pool without > changing the RAS and performance characteristics you specified during > configuration."This is what I meant by "individual disks or arbitrarily populated JBODs" in my last message. We don''t support addiing JBODs with broken or missing disks, but full (or half) populated JBODs can be added at will.> The post as a whole makes it unclear if you are able to add more disk in the > future or not without changing your RAS/performance. That specific example, > after re-reading, appears to be referring to the "one broken disk(s)". I > guess everything I''ve read about fishworks talks about "making your choice" > at first configuration, and doesn''t really make it clear what the process or > requirements are for adding disk in the future. Knowing zfs, I made the > assumption that it was possible via means like you''ve described above. If I > had no exposure to zfs though, it might be a bit less clear, and I guess in > this case, I wasn''t 100% positive even with the background I have. > > If I''ve missed something, it wouldn''t be the first time ADD has gotten the > best of me, so I apologize. Feel free to correct as you see fit.I can update the blog entry if it''s misleading. I assumed that it was implicit that the absence of the above (missing or broken disks) meant supported, but I admit that I did not state that explicitly, and not in the context of adding storage. Thanks, - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Eric Schrock <eric.schrock at sun.com> wrote:> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:38:29PM -0600, Tim wrote: > > > > And this passage: > > "If there is a broken or missing disk, we don''t let you proceed without > > explicit confirmation. The reason we do this is that once the storage > pool > > is configured, there is no way to add those disks to the pool without > > changing the RAS and performance characteristics you specified during > > configuration." > > This is what I meant by "individual disks or arbitrarily populated > JBODs" in my last message. We don''t support addiing JBODs with broken > or missing disks, but full (or half) populated JBODs can be added at > will. > > > The post as a whole makes it unclear if you are able to add more disk in > the > > future or not without changing your RAS/performance. That specific > example, > > after re-reading, appears to be referring to the "one broken disk(s)". I > > guess everything I''ve read about fishworks talks about "making your > choice" > > at first configuration, and doesn''t really make it clear what the process > or > > requirements are for adding disk in the future. Knowing zfs, I made the > > assumption that it was possible via means like you''ve described above. > If I > > had no exposure to zfs though, it might be a bit less clear, and I guess > in > > this case, I wasn''t 100% positive even with the background I have. > > > > If I''ve missed something, it wouldn''t be the first time ADD has gotten > the > > best of me, so I apologize. Feel free to correct as you see fit. > > I can update the blog entry if it''s misleading. I assumed that it was > implicit that the absence of the above (missing or broken disks) meant > supported, but I admit that I did not state that explicitly, and not in > the context of adding storage. > > Thanks, > > - Eric > > -- > Eric Schrock, Fishworks > http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock >I follow exactly what you mean after the clarification in this thread. I think it would be helpful for other readers if you put a blurb of some sort like: "when adding storage, in order to maintain RAS/performance, we require you to add either a half or full JBOD at a time". Just my .02 :) --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20081117/ba79beb2/attachment.html>
Adam Leventhal wrote:> Yes. The Sun Storage 7000 Series uses the same ZFS that''s in OpenSolaris > today. A pool created on the appliance could potentially be imported on an > OpenSolaris system; that is, of course, not explicitly supported in the > service contract. >Would be interesting to hear more about how Fishworks differs from Opensolaris, what build it is based on, what package mechanism you are using (IPS already?), and other differences... A little off topic: Do you know when the SSDs used in the Storage 7000 are available for the rest of us?
> Would be interesting to hear more about how Fishworks differs from > Opensolaris, what build it is based on, what package mechanism you are > using (IPS already?), and other differences...I''m sure these details will be examined in the coming weeks on the blogs of members of the Fishworks team. Keep an eye on blogs.sun.com/fishworks.> A little off topic: Do you know when the SSDs used in the Storage 7000 are > available for the rest of us?I don''t think the will be, but it will be possible to purchase them as replacement parts. Adam -- Adam Leventhal, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/ahl
Just to clarify that last answer, we are planning on releasing SSDs for many of our existing systems and storage. They may be a little different than what''s used in the 7000, but they''re intended for the same purpose. Your sales rep should be able to give you a better idea of when, but they''re not that far off. Here''s a list of what existing products we''re currently targeting in the near term: http://www.sun.com/storage/flash/products.jsp -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Storage 7000 From: Adam Leventhal <ahl at eng.sun.com> To: Mika Borner <opensolaris at bluewin.ch> CC: ZFS discuss <zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org> Date: Mon Nov 17 13:49:24 2008>> Would be interesting to hear more about how Fishworks differs from >> Opensolaris, what build it is based on, what package mechanism you are >> using (IPS already?), and other differences... >> > > I''m sure these details will be examined in the coming weeks on the blogs > of members of the Fishworks team. Keep an eye on blogs.sun.com/fishworks. > > >> A little off topic: Do you know when the SSDs used in the Storage 7000 are >> available for the rest of us? >> > > I don''t think the will be, but it will be possible to purchase them as > replacement parts. > > Adam > >
Is the web interface on the appliance available for download or will it make it to opensolaris sometime in the near future? thanks -- This message posted from opensolaris.org
Refering to the web gui or bui seen here http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/status_dashboard -- This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:09:07AM -0800, Andre Lue wrote:> Is the web interface on the appliance available for download or will it make > it to opensolaris sometime in the near future?It''s not, and it''s unlikely to make it to OpenSolaris. Adam -- Adam Leventhal, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/ahl