Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 19:03:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us> To: Andy Young <ayoung@mosaicarchive.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question on ZFS and redundancy Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.01.1209061901590.27589@freddy.simplesystems.org> In-Reply-To: <CAHMRaQf5HcpjMcr8wHG7dtQige7-o3bYXU0qeErSNui80F=fAQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHMRaQf5HcpjMcr8wHG7dtQige7-o3bYXU0qeErSNui80F=fAQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Andy Young wrote: > > Now with ZFS and raidz2 I love the fact that I can use a single pool to > spread data across multiple vdevs. However, the vdevs aren't independent > anymore right? Because ZFS stripes data across the vdevs, if I lose three > drives in a single vdev, doesn't this put the entire pool at risk? Yes. It is a bigger basket. If you need a stronger basket, consider raidz3 and/or pay close attention to the physical layout and connectivity of the drives so that there is the least opportunity for the drives to share the same problem. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.2.01.1209061901590.27589>