From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Oct 8 11:41:18 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4079D1AA1 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:41:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from quartz@sneakertech.com) Received: from douhisi.pair.com (unknown [IPv6:2607:f440::d144:5b3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A09A3259 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:41:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from quartz@sneakertech.com) Received: from [10.2.2.1] (pool-108-49-223-195.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.49.223.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by douhisi.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9762D3F7E8 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 07:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5616565B.8030802@sneakertech.com> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:41:15 -0400 From: Quartz MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS best resilver settings? References: <5615D856.4000801@sneakertech.com> <56161935.9040405@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <56161935.9040405@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:41:18 -0000 > Resilvering doesn't necessarily trigger disk failures more frequently > when done quickly as when done slowly -- if a disk spot has worn out and > will fail on next access, then resilvering will eventually reach it > however fast it runs. Ultimately, it's best to get the system back to > full resilience promptly. > then it may be worth > while taking the temporary hit on performance and priotising resilvering > just so you can get it over with. Well, that's why I stated rebuilding as the only goal. Performance can be degraded for a bit if it gives a better chance of getting the array back before another drive dies. I was more interested on a technical level if adjusting the resilver priority has any statistical impact on other drives failing. Besides sectors going bad, you can also have head crashes and controller failures and all sorts of other things. I'm wondering if there's a 'best practice' for minimizing that.