That sounds like some SAN vendor BS if you ask me. Breaking up 300gb into
smaller chunks would only be relevant if they were caching entire files not
blocks and I find that hard to believe. Would be interested to know more
about the specifics of the problem as the vendor sees it.
As Shawn said loc
On 9/21/2016 7:52 AM, Kyle Daving wrote:
> We are currently running solr 5.2.1 and attempted to upgrade to 6.2.1.
> We attempted this last week but ran into disk access latency problems
> so reverted back to 5.2.1. We found that after upgrading we overran
> the NVRAM on our SAN and caused a fairly
