From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Jul 9 14:56:26 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77E59972C5 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:56:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from quartz@sneakertech.com) Received: from douhisi.pair.com (douhisi.pair.com [209.68.5.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A62821FFE for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:56:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from quartz@sneakertech.com) Received: from [10.2.2.1] (pool-173-48-121-235.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.121.235]) by douhisi.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A08343F7A7; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 10:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <559E8B91.6080608@sneakertech.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 10:56:17 -0400 From: Quartz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mario Lobo CC: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: Gmirror/graid or hardware raid? References: <559D9C96.5070601@sneakertech.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 14:56:26 -0000 > Paul, your jail/ZFS scenario sounds like a perfect dream, but despite the > fact that all instances in this case will be FBSD, It must be a > VM environment because testing involves some solutions that run on windows > and different linux distros. Learning about jails isn't a bad thing, and since there's a chance you might end up using it later, it's worth looking into. > Quartz, I'll be booting the host FBSD from a separate smaller drive and > leave the main disks for the guests, so my plan is to do 2 sets of raid1 > arrays. I'd encourage you to at least consider striping them together into a raid-10: that will really increase performance with no material difference in reliability, and it will give you more effective usable space. >As for the fs, I'll try to improve my knowledge of ZFS until I can > feel confident enough to solve any problem that may arise. Fair enough, but being that this system IS a test bed, now might be a great opportunity to learn. >do you think it would be ok to use one raid array with > the regular ufs2 and the other with zfs? There's no technical reason why not, you just won't really be using the system to it's fullest potential.