Visit Open-E website
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: The feature request thread!!!

Thread has average rating 5.00 / 5.00 based on 2 votes.
Thread has been visited 21793 times.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Lightbulb The feature request thread!!!

    Hello!

    This is the feature request thread. Let me start off with some doozies:

    Snapshot merging so you can make an active snapshot into a regular, linear logical volume (FC, iscsi, or NAS). This is how it ought to work already. Would make snapshots twice as useful. There's a relatively usable BETA patch of this for LVM2 already. Read more here: http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/LVM_Snapshot_Merging

    NAS data deduplication: here's a free, open-source project that works on linux here: http://www.lessfs.com/wordpress/ But probably nothing will come of this project. Will probably have to wait until btrfs or tux3fs add deduplication. Also, ZFS will add support for deduplication, so maybe you could use ZFS in userland via FUSE? Sounds too cludgy to me.

    block-volume deduplication (i.e. iscsi or fibre channel volumes): can be implemented on top of "lessfs" or btrfs in the future, see above.

    NAS autofailover: I know this is already in the pipeline.


    PLEASE add your own suggestions! And comment on features you'd like to see.

  2. #2

    Lightbulb

    Another feature request (in response to call I just had with a customer of ours):
    the ability to lower the I/O priority for initializing a file i/o volume. Or, cancel the initialization.

  3. #3

    Default

    The allocation of IO resources to volume initialization is something that really needs addressed.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robotbeat
    Another feature request (in response to call I just had with a customer of ours):
    the ability to lower the I/O priority for initializing a file i/o volume. Or, cancel the initialization.
    What were the particulars of the IO issue? We had not noticed this as being a significant issue until we went to initialize a 500 GB volume on a 3.0 TB SATA array, which hosted other live volumes. This was on an Intel SSR212MC2 with dual quad core processors, 8 GB Memory. The CPU, Network IO, etc were all fine, but the IO dedicated to the volume initialization appeared to be way out of sync.. We won't be doing that without taking servers off line first until we get a handle on what is causing it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Same problem here with initializing a File i/o volume that was created after we had production sites running. The production servers started timing out so bad we had to stop the initialization. Now we just use File i/o volumes without initializing them first and they seem to be working ok <fingers crossed> Never could get a straight answer on the downside of not initializing a file i/o volume. Was told that EMC forces everybody to initialize there File I/O volumes so it must be good. But I bet when EMC users do initialize a File i/o volume they don't kill their production sites access at the same time.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    53

    Default

    It would be awesome, if it's possible, to integrate the Adaptec Storage Manager into the DSSv6 to control the H/W Raid controllers of Adaptec by remote and with the software of Open-E.

    Is there any way to do this?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    142

    Default

    The raid card would have to have a web based admin program like areca or 3ware do. Adaptec does not have that.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webguyz
    Same problem here with initializing a File i/o volume that was created after we had production sites running. The production servers started timing out so bad we had to stop the initialization. Now we just use File i/o volumes without initializing them first and they seem to be working ok <fingers crossed> Never could get a straight answer on the downside of not initializing a file i/o volume. Was told that EMC forces everybody to initialize there File I/O volumes so it must be good. But I bet when EMC users do initialize a File i/o volume they don't kill their production sites access at the same time.
    My advice - use block IO OR don't init file/io volumes.
    The initialization process simply uses dd to write zeros out the blocks.

    I've never gotten an answer from Open-E on what will happen if you don't init the volume.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enealDC
    My advice - use block IO OR don't init file/io volumes.
    The initialization process simply uses dd to write zeros out the blocks.

    I've never gotten an answer from Open-E on what will happen if you don't init the volume.
    We are starting to switch to Block I/O because we want to do synchronous replication with AutoFailover and it only supports Block I/O.

    For some reason my initial tests indicated File I/O had better performace, but further testing shows not much difference with Block I/O. This is in a Hyper-V enviroment. Not sure how VMware users are going to be able to do Synchronous Replication since Open-E recommends using File I/O when using this in a VMware environment.

  10. #10

    Default

    Use your own SSL certificate instead of the self generated.
    Ability to import certificates from root/subordinate CA's

    Han.


    Quote Originally Posted by Robotbeat
    Hello!

    This is the feature request thread.

    PLEASE add your own suggestions! And comment on features you'd like to see.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •