Solaris 10 on Dell hardware - To RAID or not....

Hi Guys,
Looking for a bit of help. In my current role I administer solaris 7-10 on sparc but am soon to be involved in some installs of 10 in a PowerEdge 850. My concern is mirroring. I'm quite capable of using ODS/SDS to do this at the software level but am not familar with using SCSI RAID controllers (Dell have an option for RAID1 on SCSI RAID controller or no RAID and just a normal scsi contoller). Spose the question is, am I safe enough to just go without the RAID controller and mirror the diks up myself? Does anyone have any experience using the Dell SCSI RAID controller with Solaris 10? I've read about people having issues with driver support and not being able to see diks which worries me somewhat.
Any help much appreciated.
Cheers,
Tony

Did you try it?
Unfortunately, I couldn't get a 2950 (I think that was the model #) to work properly even though it was supported. From that experience and everything I keep reading on here, I've come to the conclusion that Dell is not the way to go for servers.

Similar Messages

Dell Hardware on Linux or Solaris x86

Hi,
My company is considering moving to dell hardware in a move to drive TCO down. We currently run Sun sparc (240, 490,890) servers and they are nearing end of life. Doing the research, even visited some vendors and from what we've seen, running either RH 5 or even Solaris (x86) on Dell could prove to be a good move. We're running mostly 10.2 databases with a couple of 9.2 that we hope to have upgraded by year end.
Has anyone made a similar move and what is your experience? I worked on Dell about 4 years ago and back then we felt there were reliability issues. They crashed a little too often for my liking. I realize some of it was do to OS panics and not just hardware but that is part of the package.
Any feedbackup would be greatly appreciated.

If you're going to go Dell, you might aswell go the whole way and run RedHat.
Aside from the support issues mentioned (I'm not familiar with that aspect) Solaris has a history of being much more expensive to run (largely due to the cost of the employees that know it) with the major advantage being: better integration with Sun hardware.
As for Dell reliability, there's a reason we're an HP shop..

SAP on SOLARIS on VMWare -- DELL ?

Friends, I noticed that Dell does not have hardware certified to run SAP on Solaris -> http://www.saponsolaris.com/hwlist.html
However I have a quest that requires SAP -> on Solaris -> on DELL
One of the solutions was virtualized Solaris and install SAP on Solaris: SAP -> on Solaris -> on VMWare -> on DELL
In the topic below there is a mention that SAP does not support this type of installation, but without any reference to any SAP Note:
ERP6 EHP4 SOLARIS 10 Sparc,Oracle 10g in a virtual envirn swap size requir
Do you know any case that could help me?
thank you

If I understand the license policy of Oracle Solaris properly, the only valid way of running Solaris entitled is on hardware you bought by Sun/Oracle.
There is no note because it is not supported. There are no Solaris specific VMWare tools available, there will be no integration in the monitoring becaues of that and hance it's not supported officially.
We had likewise problems and we will switch all Solaris boxes to Linux subsequently.
Markus

Solaris 9 on Dell Power Edge 6650 x86 system

Does anyone have driver for PERC3 controller for Solaris 9, which comes with Dell Power Edge 6650?? We are tring to install Solaris 9 on Dell Power Edge 6650. The error we get is "No Hard Disks Fount".
Thank U!

After thrashing for 2 weeks with the onboard 7880 SCSI and onboard 7890 RAID controllers, I was finally able to load up Solaris 8 on a Poweredge 2400. (4/01 build)
The only way I was able to do it was configure the server as below:
7880 SCSI: CD-ROM drive only device on this controller, set to ID 5.
7890 RAID controller: Disabled. Dont' believe Dell or Adaptec, this card will not work with Solaris 7 or 8. Even with the RAID chip removed and running as standard SCSI controller, it still would not work.
Adaptec 2940 U2W: 9G Quantum Atlas V drive with HP SureStore DAT 24i drive.
PERC II RAID controller yanked out of older 4100 system, 3 drives running RAID 5.
Important note: Do not attach anything to the 7880 controller besides the CD. The system will not boot if attempting to boot to the HD or if you attempt to boot from CD, it will hang at the adp.bef file.
Hope this helps..
Mike

HT204053 hi i want to use find my mac but i got this massage (some configurations, such as software or hardware RAID,do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with find my mac)

hi i want to use find my mac but i got this massage (some configurations, such as software or hardware RAID,do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with find my mac)

hi i want to use find my mac but i got this massage (some configurations, such as software or hardware RAID,do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with find my mac)

Some configurations such as a software or hardware RAID do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with Find My Mac.

I'm getting the following error message when attempting to invoke "Find My Mac"
Some configurations such as a software or hardware RAID do not support a recovery partition and can't be used with Find My Mac.

You have no recovery partition. This is a normal condition if your boot volume is a software RAID, or if you modified the partition table after running Boot Camp Assistant to create a Windows partition. Otherwise, you need to reinstall OS X in order to add a recovery partition.
If you don't have a current backup, you need to back up before you do anything else.
You have several options for reinstalling.
1. If you have access to a local, unencrypted Time Machine backup volume, and if that volume has a backup of a Mac (not necessarily this one) that was running the same major version of OS X and did have a Recovery partition, then you can boot from the Time Machine volume into Recovery by holding down the option key at the startup chime. Encrypted Time Machine volumes are not bootable, nor are network backups.
2. If your Mac shipped with OS X 10.7 or later preinstalled, or if it's one of the computers that can be upgraded to use OS X Internet Recovery, you may be able to netboot from an Apple server by holding down the key combination option-R at the startup chime. Release the keys when you see a spinning globe.
Note: You need an always-on Ethernet or Wi-Fi connection to the Internet to use Recovery. It won’t work with USB or PPPoE modems, or with proxy servers, or with networks that require a certificate for authentication.
3. Use Recovery Disk Assistant (RDA) on another Mac running the same major version of OS X as yours to create a bootable USB device. Boot your Mac from the device by holding down the option key at startup.Warning: All existing data on the USB device will be erased when you use RDA.
Once you've booted into Recovery, the OS X Utilities screen will appear. Follow the prompts to reinstall OS X. You don't need to erase the boot volume, and you won't need your backup unless something goes wrong. If your Mac was upgraded from an older version of OS X, you’ll need the Apple ID and password you used to upgrade, so make a note of those before you begin.
If none of the above choices is open to you, then you'll have to start over from an OS X 10.6.8 installation. There's no need to overwrite your existing boot volume; you can use an external drive. Install 10.6 from the DVD you originally used to upgrade, or that came with the machine. Run Software Update and install all available updates. Log into the App Store with the Apple ID you used to buy 10.7 or later, and download the installer. When you run it, be sure to choose the right drive to install on.

FANAQ: Solaris 8 on Dell CPx

This is one of those Frequently Asked but Never Answered Question. I am having problem with install Solaris 8 on my new Dell CPx. The frist problem seems to be that the Solaris kernel does not recognize the system keyboard. I was able to use USB keyboard to perform installation ok, but when I booted it up, I endup with a blank screen even with the USB keyboard. I guess I may have to solve these problems one by one. I know that Sun has a translate program that translate Linux dev. drivers to Sun driver. So if someone can point out what missing driver could cause the keyboard problem, I may try to work that first, then bit-by-bit, I hope I can have Solaris 8 running on Dell Laptop.
Of course, if someone has already installed solaris 8 on Dell CPx, I'm glad to learn the tricks.
thanks.
steve

dont think so..not for the 7500. post here if you get it working for the 7500.

Help install solaris 10 on dell 430SC

tried without success install solaris 10 on dell 430SC.
the installation hangs at the very begining with no
appreant errors . any suggestions?thanks.

I couldn't get Solaris 10 to install.
However, I downloaded the Solaris express 11 b24 and that installs fine. It runs the 64 bit kernel :) No problems so far.
The graphics for the SC430 is a little odd. We use the SUN window system (not XOrg) and select the XF84Intel driver for the card. This works fine, trouble is it tends to like to start in a very high res mode i.e 1600xmnnnn. Run KDM config and drop the resolution.
This release uses the grub boot loader which is different but good.
Best of Luck

Help! Can'i install Solaris 9 on Dell Laptitude LS

Can'i install Solaris 9 on Dell Laptitude LS. Setting of video card and monitor fail.
My configuration is:
P3 450
128MB
MagicMedia 256 AV video and sound card.
Monitor unknown with 800*600 resolution.
Anyone has idea about that. Thanks!

Yes, OS 9 is PPC architecture only. The only way I can think of that you could possibly run it would be to download PearPC (A PPC architecture emulator-http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/) off of Windows (which is officially unsupported on Apple machines to begin with), and then attempt to run OS 9 off of PearPC.
The program is rather slow, and as you can see, the process is really quite time consuming, illogical (three different systems, one running in emulation), and definitely not worth the end result.
Good Luck,
DV Guru

Can't install Solaris 10 on DELL VOSOTRO 200 ?

Hi All,
I am new to SOLARIS, and wanted to play with it.
I tried to install Solaris 10 ON dell VOSOTRO 200 and it does not install at all. It gets stuck at the very first place. I tried open solaris and Solaris in all different ways, CD/DVD/USB.
I used the same CD/DVD in Emachine and they get install just fine. Is solaris not compatible to DELL VOSOTRO? Or am I doing something wrong ?
Any answer would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Envrionment
SOLARIS 10, 32 Bit.
DELL VOSOTRO 200
Thanks,
jfk

Hi, I had a similar problem when I tried to Install Solaris X86 on an HP Proliant DL586g2. You'll probably find the problem Is that you need to Install some drivers first to enable the Installation. If you need more specific details I can probably find a guide on how to do this. But I'm certain It Is possible to run Solaris on the Dell It just might take a bit of perseverance.
Good luck

Solaris 10 on Dell Dimension 4300

After initial install Solaris 10 on Dell Dimension 4300 (Pentium 4 1.6GHz, 512MB RAM), when system first reboot, I got error message:
Configure IPv4 interface: Segamentation Fault
elxl0
..... can not assign request address.
So I have manualy asign IP address when system boot up, what was wrong ?
Thanks.

I remember that a similar problem was reported on the solarisx86 mailing list, in an old build of solaris 10:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarisx86/message/3456
What version of Solaris 10 are you using? The current build is s10_55, Solaris Express 5/2004.
Apparently there was a problem with /sbin/ifconfig or /sbin/mount crashing at boot time, when /usr was
on a separate filesystem, and some naming serverice was consulted (?). (bugid 4853968).
The workarounds are apparently:
- don't use a separate /usr filesytem, or
- use numeric IP addresses in /etc/hostname.interface files

UC Applications on Dell Hardware

I found this post about installing CUCM on Dell hardware and the response was that Dell is an explicitly
https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3765915
I also followed the wiki link in the post and no longer see Dell on the unsupported list. Can anyone confirm that UC apps are now supported on Dell hardware?
Here's the wiki link:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/UC_Virtualization_Supported_Hardware#.22Can_I_use_this_server.3F.22

Hi Jacob,
Yes, these UC apps are now supported on Dell if they meet
the spec/requirements
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/ps6884/products_tech_note09186a0080bf23f5.shtml
Cheers!
Rob
"Why do the best things always disappear "
- The Band

To RAID or not to RAID, that is the question

People often ask: Should I raid my disks?
The question is simple, unfortunately the answer is not. So here I'm going to give you another guide to help you decide when a raid array is advantageous and how to go about it. Notice that this guide also applies to SSD's, with the expection of the parts about mechanical failure.
What is a RAID?
RAID is the acronym for "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks". The concept originated at the University of Berkely in 1987 and was intended to create large storage capacity with smaller disks without the need for very expensive and reliable disks, that were very expensive at that time, often a tenfold of smaller disks. Today prices of hard disks have fallen so much that it often is more attractive to buy a single 1 TB disk than two 500 GB disks. That is the reason that today RAID is often described as "Redundant Array of Independent Disks".
The idea behind RAID is to have a number of disks co-operate in such a way that it looks like one big disk. Note that 'Spanning' is not in any way comparable to RAID, it is just a way, like inverse partitioning, to extend the base partition to use multiple disks, without changing the method of reading and writing to that extended partition.
Why use a RAID?
Now with these lower disks prices today, why would a video editor consider a raid array? There are two reasons:
1. Redundancy (or security)
2. Performance
Notice that it can be a combination of both reasons, it is not an 'either/or' reason.
Does a video editor need RAID?
No, if the above two reasons, redundancy and performance are not relevant. Yes if either or both reasons are relevant.
Re 1. Redundancy
Every mechanical disk will eventually fail, sometimes on the first day of use, sometimes only after several years of usage. When that happens, all data on that disk are lost and the only solution is to get a new disk and recreate the data from a backup (if you have one) or through tedious and time-consuming work. If that does not bother you and you can spare the time to recreate the data that were lost, then redundancy is not an issue for you. Keep in mind that disk failures often occur at inconvenient moments, on a weekend when the shops are closed and you can't get a replacement disk, or when you have a tight deadline.
Re 2. Performance
Opponents of RAID will often say that any modern disk is fast enough for video editing and they are right, but only to a certain extent. As fill rates of disks go up, performance goes down, sometimes by 50%. As the number of disk activities on the disk go up , like accessing (reading or writing) pagefile, media cache, previews, media, project file, output file, performance goes down the drain. The more tracks you have in your project, the more strain is put on your disk. 10 tracks require 10 times the bandwidth of a single track. The more applications you have open, the more your pagefile is used. This is especially apparent on systems with limited memory.
The following chart shows how fill rates on a single disk will impact performance:
Remember that I said previously the idea behind RAID is to have a number of disks co-operate in such a way that it looks like one big disk. That means a RAID will not fill up as fast as a single disk and not experience the same performance degradation.
RAID basics
Now that we have established the reasons why people may consider RAID, let's have a look at some of the basics.
Single or Multiple?
There are three methods to configure a RAID array: mirroring, striping and parity check. These are called levels and levels are subdivided in single or multiple levels, depending on the method used. A single level RAID0 is striping only and a multiple level RAID15 is a combination of mirroring (1) and parity check (5). Multiple levels are designated by combining two single levels, like a multiple RAID10, which is a combination of single level RAID0 with a single level RAID1.
Hardware or Software?
The difference is quite simple: hardware RAID controllers have their own processor and usually their own cache. Software RAID controllers use the CPU and the RAM on the motherboard. Hardware controllers are faster but also more expensive. For RAID levels without parity check like Raid0, Raid1 and Raid10 software controllers are quite good with a fast PC.
The common Promise and Highpoint cards are all software controllers that (mis)use the CPU and RAM memory. Real hardware RAID controllers all use their own IOP (I/O Processor) and cache (ever wondered why these hardware controllers are expensive?).
There are two kinds of software RAID's. One is controlled by the BIOS/drivers (like Promise/Highpoint) and the other is solely OS dependent. The first kind can be booted from, the second one can only be accessed after the OS has started. In performance terms they do not differ significantly.
For the technically inclined: Cluster size, Block size and Chunk size
In short: Cluster size applies to the partition and Block or Stripe size applies to the array.
With a cluster size of 4 KB, data are distributed across the partition in 4 KB parts. Suppose you have a 10 KB file, three full clusters will be occupied: 4 KB - 4 KB - 2 KB. The remaining 2 KB is called slackspace and can not be used by other files. With a block size (stripe) of 64 KB, data are distributed across the array disks in 64 KB parts. Suppose you have a 200 KB file, the first part of 64 KB is located on disk A, the second 64 KB is located on disk B, the third 64 KB is located on disk C and the remaining 8 KB on disk D. Here there is no slackspace, because the block size is subdivided into clusters. When working with audio/video material a large block size is faster than smaller block size. Working with smaller files a smaller block size is preferred.
Sometimes you have an option to set 'Chunk size', depending on the controller. It is the minimal size of a data request from the controller to a disk in the array and only useful when striping is used. Suppose you have a block size of 16 KB and you want to read a 1 MB file. The controller needs to read 64 times a block of 16 KB. With a chunk size of 32 KB the first two blocks will be read from the first disk, the next two blocks from the next disk, and so on. If the chunk size is 128 KB. the first 8 blocks will be read from the first disk, the next 8 block from the second disk, etcetera. Smaller chunks are advisable with smaller filer, larger chunks are better for larger (audio/video) files.
RAID Levels
For a full explanation of various RAID levels, look here: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00/html
What are the benefits of each RAID level for video editing and what are the risks and benefits of each level to help you achieve better redundancy and/or better performance? I will try to summarize them below.
RAID0
The Band AID of RAID. There is no redundancy! There is a risk of losing all data that is a multiplier of the number of disks in the array. A 2 disk array carries twice the risk over a single disk, a X disk array carries X times the risk of losing it all.
A RAID0 is perfectly OK for data that you will not worry about if you lose them. Like pagefile, media cache, previews or rendered files. It may be a hassle if you have media files on it, because it requires recapturing, but not the end-of-the-world. It will be disastrous for project files.
Performance wise a RAID0 is almost X times as fast as a single disk, X being the number of disks in the array.
RAID1
The RAID level for the paranoid. It gives no performance gain whatsoever. It gives you redundancy, at the cost of a disk. If you are meticulous about backups and make them all the time, RAID1 may be a better solution, because you can never forget to make a backup, you can restore instantly. Remember backups require a disk as well. This RAID1 level can only be advised for the C drive IMO if you do not have any trust in the reliability of modern-day disks. It is of no use for video editing.
RAID3
The RAID level for video editors. There is redundancy! There is only a small performance hit when rebuilding an array after a disk failure due to the dedicated parity disk. There is quite a perfomance gain achieveable, but the drawback is that it requires a hardware controller from Areca. You could do worse, but apart from it being the Rolls-Royce amongst the hardware controllers, it is expensive like the car.
Performance wise it will achieve around 85% (X-1) on reads and 60% (X-1) on writes over a single disk with X being the number of disks in the array. So with a 6 disk array in RAID3, you get around 0.85x (6-1) = 425% the performance of a single disk on reads and 300% on writes.
RAID5 & RAID6
The RAID level for non-video applications with distributed parity. This makes for a somewhat severe hit in performance in case of a disk failure. The double parity in RAID6 makes it ideal for NAS applications.
The performance gain is slightly lower than with a RAID3. RAID6 requires a dedicated hardware controller, RAID5 can be run on a software controller but the CPU overhead negates to a large extent the performance gain.
RAID10
The RAID level for paranoids in a hurry. It delivers the same redundancy as RAID 1, but since it is a multilevel RAID, combined with a RAID0, delivers twice the performance of a single disk at four times the cost, apart from the controller. The main advantage is that you can have two disk failures at the same time without losing data, but what are the chances of that happening?
RAID30, 50 & 60
Just striped arrays of RAID 3, 5 or 6 which doubles the speed while keeping redundancy at the same level.
EXTRAS
RAID level 0 is striping, RAID level 1 is mirroring and RAID levels 3, 5 & 6 are parity check methods. For parity check methods, dedicated controllers offer the possibility of defining a hot-spare disk. A hot-spare disk is an extra disk that does not belong to the array, but is instantly available to take over from a failed disk in the array. Suppose you have a 6 disk RAID3 array with a single hot-spare disk and assume one disk fails. What happens? The data on the failed disk can be reconstructed in the background, while you keep working with negligeable impact on performance, to the hot-spare. In mere minutes your system is back at the performance level you were before the disk failure. Sometime later you take out the failed drive, replace it for a new drive and define that as the new hot-spare.
As stated earlier, dedicated hardware controllers use their own IOP and their own cache instead of using the memory on the mobo. The larger the cache on the controller, the better the performance, but the main benefits of cache memory are when handling random R+W activities. For sequential activities, like with video editing it does not pay to use more than 2 GB of cache maximum.
REDUNDANCY(or security)
Not using RAID entails the risk of a drive failing and losing all data. The same applies to using RAID0 (or better said AID0), only multiplied by the number of disks in the array.
RAID1 or 10 overcomes that risk by offering a mirror, an instant backup in case of failure at high cost.
RAID3, 5 or 6 offers protection for disk failure by reconstructing the lost data in the background (1 disk for RAID3 & 5, 2 disks for RAID6) while continuing your work. This is even enhanced by the use of hot-spares (a double assurance).
PERFORMANCE
RAID0 offers the best performance increase over a single disk, followed by RAID3, then RAID5 amd finally RAID6. RAID1 does not offer any performance increase.
Hardware RAID controllers offer the best performance and the best options (like adjustable block/stripe size and hot-spares), but they are costly.
SUMMARY
If you only have 3 or 4 disks in total, forget about RAID. Set them up as individual disks, or the better alternative, get more disks for better redundancy and better performance. What does it cost today to buy an extra disk when compared to the downtime you have when a single disk fails?
If you have room for at least 4 or more disks, apart from the OS disk, consider a RAID3 if you have an Areca controller, otherwise consider a RAID5.
If you have even more disks, consider a multilevel array by striping a parity check array to form a RAID30, 50 or 60.
If you can afford the investment get an Areca controller with battery backup module (BBM) and 2 GB of cache. Avoid as much as possible the use of software raids, especially under Windows if you can.
RAID, if properly configured will give you added redundancy (or security) to protect you from disk failure while you can continue working and will give you increased performance.
Look carefully at this chart to see what a properly configured RAID can do to performance and compare it to the earlier single disk chart to see the performance difference, while taking into consideration that you can have one disks (in each array) fail at the same time without data loss:
Hope this helps in deciding whether RAID is worthwhile for you.
WARNING: If you have a power outage without a UPS, all bets are off.
A power outage can destroy the contents of all your disks if you don't have a proper UPS. A BBM may not be sufficient to help in that case.

Harm,
thanks for your comment.
Your understanding was absolutely right.
Sorry my mistake its QNAP 639 PRO, populated with 5 1TB, one is empty.
So for my understanding, in my configuration you suggest NOT to use RAID-0. Im not willing to have more drives in my workstation becouse if my projekts are finished, i archiv on QNAP or archiv on other external drive.
My only intention is to have as much speed and as much performance as possible during developing a projekt
BTW QNAP i also use as media-center in combination with Sony PS3 to run the encoded files.
For my final understanding:
C: i understand
D: i understand
E and F: does it mean, when i create a projekt on E, all my captured and project-used MPEG - files should be situated in F? Or which media in F you mean?
Following your suggestions in want to rebulid Harms-Best Vista64-Benchmark comp to reach maximum speed and performance. Can i use in general the those hardware components (exept so many HD drives and exept Areca raid controller ) in my drive configuration C to F. Or would you suggest some changings in my situation?

HT201302 I have Windows 7, but Hardware and Sound is not listed in my Control Panel. So, how do I transfer videos from my ipad to my computer?

I am trying to transfer videos that I've recorded with my ipod camera to my computer. The option to auto play does not pop up when I plug in my ipod, so I looked up how to do this manually. Apple support websites told me to go to Control Panel and then Hardware and Sound, but Hardware and Sound is not listed in my control panel options. What other options do I have? I own a Dell laptop and I have Windows 7.

Does the iPod show in My Computer? If so then go to My Computer>iPod>DCMI Folder and copy them from there to where you want them

HELP HELP HELP RAID IS NOT SHOWING ANY DATA!

Hi all,
OK after minor heart attack this morning this is what happened!
Built raid 50 with 14 500GB disks on brand new raid.
After formatting for a few days etc it was good to go.
Starting dumping all my 3TB's (7 yrs of work) onto the raid from local xserve.
Copied everything perfectly, could read, write all good.
I have 2 xserves and the raid was showing on both desktops (it is all connected via a Brocade 4100 switch) Apparently this is not a good thing Apple have told me, As far as I was aware the whole idea of having a FC switch was so all my Macs could show the raid locally and all work on it at once?
Tried to share a few of the files on the x raid and got some minor errors, restarted xserve and when it rebooted raid was back to full size with NOTHING on it at all!!!
This wouldn't of been a problem if I hadn't just wiped the xserve drives with the original data on them..........
I have Apple Premium care so they are looking into now but I thought it would be good to throw it out there as well,
Any help would be vastly appreciated, this is literally my lifes computer work, pictures etc etc etc

A FC switch does allow multiple systems to connect to the same raid "hardware" at once but not in the way that you think. It allows the physical connection (By affording you more ports) but it is a dumb switch, it doesn't manage your data or prevent corruption from sharing the same raid on multiple machines.
Using my external raid as an example, I setup specific LUN's or partitions that each system can access. How you do this can vary but in my case, I have a promise raid and setup LUN masking in their software so that "LUN 1" is controlled by xserve 1 and 'LUN 2' is controlled by xserve 2. You can't mount the same partition or raid on two different systems at the same time like that... it leads to data corruption and yes, possibly loss of data. In this case, I then see my specified LUN 1 (kind of like a partition) appear on the desktop of one xserve and LUN 2 (kinda of like another partition) on xserves 2 desktop; think of it as reserved space.
When you need to share data to other machines, you would then use SMB, AFP, NFS, webdav, ftp or whatever you see fit. In other words, raid is a storage mechanism, not a sharing mechanism.
Others can probably provide a more technical explanation but I just wanted to refute the point about the FC switch in that it does not behave in the manner you believe (or were lead to believe).
ps: Have you tried looking at the drive when it is connected to only one xserve to see if your data is still there (Instead of leaving it connected to both)?
You did maintain a backup even after you transferred everything, right?
Message was edited by: Shane Depner1
Message was edited by: Shane Depner1

Solaris 10 on Dell hardware - To RAID or not....

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for