Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:25:41 +0300 From: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> To: Nenhum_de_Nos <matheus@eternamente.info> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS - thanks Message-ID: <cf9b1ee00907090525t7a337775q71aa01e6a3173de5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <73a41d4b72d62b0bfe3d0fb7206376a8.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> References: <20090709112512.GA44158@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> <73a41d4b72d62b0bfe3d0fb7206376a8.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nenhum_de_Nos<matheus@eternamente.info> wrote: > > On Thu, July 9, 2009 08:25, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: >> Hi, all, >> >> I just wanted to say a big big thank you to Kip and all the >> developers who made ZFS on FreeBSD real. >> >> And to everyone who provided helpful comments in the >> last couple of days. >> >> I had to delete and rebuild my zpool to switch from a >> 12-disk raidz2 to two 6-disk ones, but yesterday I could >> replace the raw devices with glabel devices and practice >> replacing a failed disk at the same time. ;-) >> >> So now we have this setup: >> >> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM >> zfs ONLINE 0 0 0 >> raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk100 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk101 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk102 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk103 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk104 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk105 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk106 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk107 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk108 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk109 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk110 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> label/disk111 ONLINE 0 0 0 >> >> which will get another enclosure with 6 750-GB-disks, soon. >> >> I really like the way I can manage storage from the operating >> system without propriatary controller management software or >> even rebooting into the BIOS. >> >> Kind regards, >> Patrick > > I've always been curious about this. is said not good to have many disks > in one pool. ok then. but this layout you're using in here will have the > same effect as the twelve disks in only one pool ? (the space here is the > sum of both pools ?) Having an enormous pool consisting of dozens of disks is not the actual problem. Having the pool consist of large (> 9 disks) raidz/raidz2 "groups" is. A single pool consising of 5 x 8 disk raidz (40 disks total) is fine. A single pool consisting of a 40 (or any amount bigger than 9) disk raidz is not. - Sincerely, Dan Naumov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cf9b1ee00907090525t7a337775q71aa01e6a3173de5>