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
Hi All,
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 large queue depth for disk access
