Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:32:49 +0200 From: Matthias Gamsjager <mgamsjager@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is ZFS production ready? Message-ID: <CA%2BD9QhvwKZm7heoe7tpfhYCJvkknw_HC7aFjCu%2B-1xYQBmV6ng@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211619250.3092@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <4FE2CE38.9000100@gmail.com> <CAPj0R5Kmi-%2BdJ7mPvTrTAoS8O983svOyR2WyK2_v1Cr07dSS_A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211413140.2263@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CA%2BD9QhuQ%2BbxKW9%2BdX%2BzS9mErwz8JSkV2G7qL0KfB8BH_LGJAgA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211539230.2903@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CA%2BD9QhvR_eKtVxdKcaMyOS7tLw_AOHKgUy3o7mJn2b=chMA0Xw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211619250.3092@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BD9QhvwKZm7heoe7tpfhYCJvkknw_HC7aFjCu%2B-1xYQBmV6ng>