From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 14 01:47:06 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5C5EC6 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:47:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FEEE8FC14 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:47:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from JRE-MBP-2.local (c-50-143-149-146.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.143.149.146]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAE1kn9Y003221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:46:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <50A2F804.3010009@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:46:44 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Keltz Subject: Re: RHEL to FreeBSD file server References: <50A130B7.4080604@cse.yorku.ca> <20121113043409.GA70601@neutralgood.org> <50A2B95D.4000400@cse.yorku.ca> In-Reply-To: <50A2B95D.4000400@cse.yorku.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:47:06 -0000 On 11/13/12 1:19 PM, Jason Keltz wrote: > On 11/13/2012 12:41 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, kpneal@pobox.com wrote: >>> >>> With your setup of 11 mirrors you have a good mixture of read and >>> write >>> performance, but you've compromised on the safety. The reason that >>> RAID 6 >>> (and thus raidz2) and up were invented was because drives that get >>> used >>> together tend to fail together. If you lose a drive in a mirror >>> there is >>> an elevated probability that the replacement drive will not be in >>> place >>> before the remaining leg of the mirror fails. If that happens then >>> you've >>> lost the pool. (Drive failures are _not_ independent.) >> >> Do you have a reference to independent data which supports this >> claim that drive failures are not independent? The whole function >> of RAID assumes that drive failures are independent. >> >> If drives share a chassis, care should be taken to make sure that >> redundant drives are not in physical proximity to each other and >> that they are supported via a different controller, I/O path, and >> power supply. If the drives are in a different chassis then their >> failures should be completely independent outside of a shared event >> like power surge, fire, EMP, flood, or sun-spot activity. >> >> The idea of raidz2 vdevs of four drives each sounds nice but will >> suffer from decreased performance and increased time to replace a >> failed disk. There are always tradeoffs. > > Hi Bob. > > Initially, I had one storage chassis, split between 2 LSI 9205-8e > controllers with a 22 disk pool comprised of 11 mirrored vdevs. > I think that I'm still slightly uncomfortable with the fact that 2 > disks, which were all purchased at the same time, could essentially > die at the same time, killing my whole pool. Yet, while moving to > raidz2 would allow better redundancy, I'm not sure if the raidz2 > rebuild time and decrease in performance would be worth it.. > After all, this would be a primary file server, without which, I'd > be in big trouble.. > As a result, I'm considering this approach.. > I'll buy another md1220, a few more disks, add another 9205-8e > card... and use triple mirrored vdevs instead of dual.... I only > really need about 8 x 900 GB storage, so if I can multiply this by > 3, add a few spares... in addition, each set of disks would be on > its own controller. I should be able to lose a controller, and > maintain full redundancy.... I should be able to lose an entire > disk enclosure and still be up ... I believe read performance would > probably go up, but I suspect that write performance would suffer a > little -- not sure exactly by how much. > > When I first speced out the server, the LSI 9205-8e was the best > choice for a card since the PCI Express 3 HBAs (which the R720 > supports) weren't out yet ... now, there's the LSI 9207-8e which is > PCIE3, but I guess it doesn't make much sense to buy one of those > now that I have another 2 x LSI 9205-8e cards already ... (a shame > though since there is less than $50 difference between the cards). > > By the way - on another note - what do you or other list members > think of the new Intel SSD DC S3700 as ZIL? Sounds very promising > when it's finally available. I spent a lot of time researching ZILs > today, and one thing I can say is that I have a major headache now > because of it!! ZIL is best served by battery backed up ram or something.. it's tiny and not a really good fit an SSD (maybe just a partition) L2ARC on the other hand is a really good use for SSD. > > Jason. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >