From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 21 14:33:21 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 B5659106566B for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:33:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mgamsjager@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642CB8FC22 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:33:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vcbfy7 with SMTP id fy7so437487vcb.13 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:33:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=5ZGOz6OKvLr+2jExLoj85E/mZnlO0tgWJkrCBxRr2Kg=; b=PzQEXpc5m1QU+bSPikR2xjsURxRVxGqaMLNZGATJSK4cb1C7Vx8pHUIsVbSb3GY4te 9bHNynQhZXi3acg3HKHBB4HyRP8WTTltGaoDVagTSCL/LSLoQXC5SQFlD8+91Z1uWhY9 zxjzGB/gdw2cFFyj+0nLmo6ak6bT6Sazfb9beFBI48nEfbgrgbq8WIpPwamfLCPQwz4/ 7WdjoHFiqV9/TRLFEjIj6t1A86QoMQA5E2BS03t/slJHxQL8pYQlVA2eWQZKKPLx485X yjdz1eeDVLO53mkgFKY8mGnBYockL4I8bG5FvW1j3qry0GZeQ7hg6D2MviYECnM9Zhu4 +V/g== Received: by 10.52.28.71 with SMTP id z7mr5455206vdg.105.1340289200862; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:33:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.172.199 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:32:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FE2CE38.9000100@gmail.com> From: Matthias Gamsjager Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:32:49 +0200 Message-ID: To: FreeBSD Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 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 14:33:21 -0000 On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar < wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > >> 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. > > interesting idea but the options ZFS would give you are superior to this setup. But I have still not seen any evidence/facts that ZFS looses more data than UFS. Excluding user error which is 90% the reason data is lost.