From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 21 14:22:56 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5B1106564A for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:22:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F1C8FC08 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:22:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5LEMqnj003111; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:22:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q5LEMqDB003108; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:22:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:22:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Matthias Gamsjager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4FE2CE38.9000100@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="2456600518-150860120-1340288572=:3092" X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:22:52 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Kaya Saman , FreeBSD Questions , Hooman Fazaeli Subject: Re: Is ZFS production ready? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:22:56 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --2456600518-150860120-1340288572=:3092 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT > > answer yourself. > > > Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not mirror 24vs24. if i wasn't clear enough then i would it like that (with UFS), and assuming disks are named disk0....disk48, and that i have at least one more disk for system code, often acessed data etc (SSD would be fine), while these 48 disks store user/whatever data. gmirror label ...options... mirror1 /dev/disk0 /dev/disk1 gmirror label ...options... mirror2 /dev/disk2 /dev/disk3 . . . gmirror label ...options... mirror24 /dev/disk46 /dev/disk47 then newfs etc.. and mounted as 24 filesystems. eg. /home1.../home24 then decide how to spread things properly. this depend of your needs. --2456600518-150860120-1340288572=:3092--