From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 25 20:41:00 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E5DBB2A for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BB09CC2 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:40:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x3so2811443qcv.41 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uAHgaydciqJvHMEsCpVF1JjEygXtl5FYmOjCYAvTZj4=; b=m6WuxSym4VNr3bf2SLGfX4STekWnTSfKt/jCDYwnFG9qIdacMF+Y0BDxZeVSxIbhMd C6GCa2hGFmYhXz5/jc6TMJAd73e9JfcEeOwJai0Aim4MpJrYjE98JBkQcEkbZNHWet2r LodDGjtbXix8bLw/ZaChueqvJHke8IRgTQzkcnHBiDHrU71H04bYZeOMML5JjUL9ah5l fBNpDkBq8c6b+JBvhY2kterhpasJAq3oSjuN9BEXflWZ+iMCSns+b78km4xbDJ5i6LqI GCMTCa3PQ/2HYNU2SpvFxTu4g2tOb9/u/vRfMBJoDjxbf5VMErigdLQHMfJXPFua9id+ 4lSA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXbq1FAiNpEqgJ9UCuqX+Af+pWVhTnm2VI1nPEZsrJdrfT+IRMY3xzKtg6ixwxfeTY/p9n X-Received: by 10.140.28.8 with SMTP id 8mr25551304qgy.19.1411677658220; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MBP-1.local ([96.236.21.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t2sm2938916qaj.47.2014.09.25.13.40.56 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:40:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Kraus X-Google-Original-From: Paul Kraus Message-ID: <54247DD8.2060107@brandywine.kraus-haus.org> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:40:56 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs; adding vdev with same size and raid level but different layout References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:41:00 -0000 On 9/25/14 16:09, Stefan Johansson wrote: > I’m running FreeBSD 9.3-RELEASE with a zpool in raidz1 with 5 2TB disks. > Now I’m planning to expand the pool with a vdev with the same effective size (8TB). > Would it be a bad idea to add 3 4TB disks in raidz1 to the pool instead of another 5 2TB disks? > What could be the disadvantage with such a setup? The major disadvantage would be performance difference between the two vdevs, but since most RAIDz1 performance limits are due to the speed of one drive in the vdev, that should not be a major difference. Remember to have a large enough hot spare (or even a cold spare on the shelf) so that _when_ you lose a device you are not waiting a long time to find out or replace it. With large zpools you are more vulnerable to multiple device failures due to the longer resilver times. Unlike hardware RAID, ZFS resilver times are NOT based on raw sequential performance of the devices, but are limited by host CPU and random I/O limits of the devices since a resilver is more like a walk of the zpool in time replaying transactions. You can even mix up vdev types within a zpool (RAIDz1, 2-way mirror, RAIDz2, etc.). The biggest disadvantage that has been discussed over on the ZFS list is that you really can't predict the performance of such a "hybrid" zpool at all since you never _know_ which vdevs will be handling the write/read. -- -- Paul Kraus paul@kraus-haus.org Co-Chair Albacon 2014.5 http://www.albacon.org/2014/