From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 11 14:15:29 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98157106564A for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:15:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dimitry@andric.com) Received: from tensor.andric.com (cl-327.ede-01.nl.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:7b8:2ff:146::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D2B8FC0C for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:15:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dimitry@andric.com) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:cc47:6265:9b5e:7450] (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:cc47:6265:9b5e:7450]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D28D25C42; Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:15:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A589E80.10901@andric.com> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:15:28 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1pre) Gecko/20090705 Shredder/3.0b3pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Jeremy References: <20090709112512.GA44158@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> <73a41d4b72d62b0bfe3d0fb7206376a8.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> <84665df87e93a6ccf24d9837cbc53eba.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> <20090711084042.GA77702@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20090711084042.GA77702@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Dan Naumov Subject: Re: ZFS - thanks X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:15:29 -0000 On 2009-07-11 10:40, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Jul-09 15:39:35 +0300, Dan Naumov wrote: >> A single 40 disk raidz (DO NOT DO THIS) will have 40 disks total, 39 >> disks worth of space and will definately explode on you sooner rather >> than later (probably on the first import, export or scrub). > > Can you provide a reference for this statement. AFAIK, the only > reason for the upper recommended limit of 9 disks is performance. The more disks you use in one RAID set, the higher the probability that more than one disk will fail at the same time. An interesting read can be found here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162