Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:13:41 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peter_Ankerst=E5l?= <peter@pean.org> To: Sean <sean@ttys0.net> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Raid + zfs performace. Message-ID: <C10169FF-72DA-409E-A741-E827FF894B85@pean.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTima02fBo8gRwCTZH3xWV1mM3r439tgQCXVa4RwB@mail.gmail.com> References: <D2954020-C3A0-46EC-8C64-EB57EA1E9B21@pean.org> <AANLkTinQWchAPtcqcO3mDt9gKK5tCsHo8khyiD69M4BV@mail.gmail.com> <86693036-9351-4303-BADA-C99F7A4C375C@pean.org> <AANLkTima02fBo8gRwCTZH3xWV1mM3r439tgQCXVa4RwB@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>=20 >=20 >> Now you presented me with a third option. So you think I should skip = to create >> a new hardware-raid mirror and instead use two single drives and add = these as >> a mirror to the existing pool? >=20 > If you're going to keep the hardware raid, then setting up a new > hardware raid of two drives, and then striping da1 with da0 via zfs is > a viable option. It's just another spin on the RAID 10 idea. >=20 Sorry to ask again but I'm still not sure what you think is the best = solution when=20 comparing adding the two new drives as a zfs mirror like: pool da0 mirror da1 da2 or making a hardware mirror da1 and adding that one=20 pool=20 da0 da1 And by the way. you guys seem zfs-shifty. Do you have any ideas about my = other problem i posted to the list? = (http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2010-October/009922.html) Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C10169FF-72DA-409E-A741-E827FF894B85>