Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:46:24 -0800 From: Dennis Glatting <freebsd@penx.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS confusion Message-ID: <1390819584.26485.24.camel@btw.pki2.com> In-Reply-To: <20140127102022.1caee0134a656d112aeae977@sohara.org> References: <52E40C82.7050302@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1401270944100.4811@mail.fig.ol.no> <52E62DFF.3010600@gmail.com> <20140127102022.1caee0134a656d112aeae977@sohara.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 10:20 +0000, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:59:27 +0000 > Kaya Saman <kayasaman@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Would it be better to create a raidz1 pool then just add raidz1 pools to > > the master as time goes by? > > I would advise against using any scheme that only allows a single > disc failure. When (not if) a disc fails and needs to go RMA you're stuck > with no redundancy at all until the replacement comes back and gets > resilvered. That can be an uncomfortably long time, especially if all your > drives came from the same batch (if at all possible don't let that happen, > I've seen a big RAID array lose several drives in one day because they all > came from the same batch and all wore out together). > +1 I've been burned by multiple drive failures more times than I care to admit. Most of my RAID arrays are now RAID6 or RAIDz2. I mirror when I have small space requirements (storage and physical) and I'm satisfied with the risk.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1390819584.26485.24.camel>