Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 21:24:36 +1100 From: Jean-Yves Avenard <jyavenard@gmail.com> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS - moving from a zraid1 to zraid2 pool with 1.5tb disks Message-ID: <AANLkTikEz-WgPX53WmOe4wCmXid_u59bTX0EdjqrkFQz@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D2987E0.7060701@infracaninophile.co.uk> 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> <m262ty39th.wl%randy@psg.com> <4D297587.4030108@infracaninophile.co.uk> <AANLkTikn2G_23M3PbERTo8KR3sDqxkhWr=OntA4cVwh9@mail.gmail.com> <4D2987E0.7060701@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9 January 2011 21:03, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> w= rote: > > So you sacrifice performance 100% of the time based on the very unlikely > possibility of drives 1+2 or 3+4 failing simultaneously, compared to the > similarly unlikely possibility of drives 1+3 or 1+4 or 2+3 or 2+4 But this is not what you first wrote You said the effect were identical. they are not. Now if you want to favour performance over redundancy that's ultimately up to the user... Plus, honestly, the difference in performance between raidz and raid10 is also close to bein insignificant. > failing simultaneously?[*] =A0That's not a trade-off worth making IMHO. > If the data is that valuable, you should be making copies of it to some > independent machine all the time and backing up at frequent intervals, > which backups you keep off-site in disaster-proof storage.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikEz-WgPX53WmOe4wCmXid_u59bTX0EdjqrkFQz>