Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:20:00 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: Artem Belevich <fbsdlist@src.cx> Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Chris Forgeron <cforgeron@acsi.ca> Subject: Re: ZFS - moving from a zraid1 to zraid2 pool with 1.5tb disks Message-ID: <CC37553B-EE13-4B5B-AC87-80D0ECC1A2B3@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimezasVY%2BMJjWn2T9sBGQV-JrNmYqRwv_gPYPJP@mail.gmail.com> References: <4D1C6F90.3080206@my.gd> <ifsia5$5ub$2@dough.gmane.org> <4D21E679.80002@my.gd> <84882169-0461-480F-8B4C-58E794BCC8E6@my.gd> <BEBC15BA440AB24484C067A3A9D38D7E0149F32D13E3@server7.acsi.ca> <488AE93A-97B9-4F01-AD0A-0098E4B329C3@my.gd> <AANLkTimezasVY%2BMJjWn2T9sBGQV-JrNmYqRwv_gPYPJP@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You both make good points, thanks for the feedback :) I am more concerned about data protection than performance, so I suppose rai= dz2 is the best choice I have with such a small scale setup. Now the question that remains is wether or not to use parts of the OS's ssd f= or zil, cache, or both ? --- Fleuriot Damien On 5 Jan 2011, at 23:12, Artem Belevich <fbsdlist@src.cx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> wrote: >> Well actually... >>=20 >> raidz2: >> - 7x 1.5 tb =3D 10.5tb >> - 2 parity drives >>=20 >> raidz1: >> - 3x 1.5 tb =3D 4.5 tb >> - 4x 1.5 tb =3D 6 tb , total 10.5tb >> - 2 parity drives in split thus different raidz1 arrays >>=20 >> So really, in both cases 2 different parity drives and same storage... >=20 > In second case you get better performance, but lose some data > protection. It's still raidz1 and you can't guarantee functionality in > all cases of two drives failing. If two drives fail in the same vdev, > your entire pool will be gone. Granted, it's better than single-vdev > raidz1, but it's *not* as good as raidz2. >=20 > --Artem
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CC37553B-EE13-4B5B-AC87-80D0ECC1A2B3>