From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 25 09:06:04 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25081065670 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:06:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (gate6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8718FC13 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:06:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from seedling.black-earth.co.uk (seedling.black-earth.co.uk [81.187.76.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2P95tBP013652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:05:56 GMT (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Message-ID: <4BAB2773.5060503@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:05:55 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman Organization: Infracaninophile User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: krad References: <20100324103151.GA2598@potato> <4BA9F87E.7050205@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_ALL, SPF_FAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk Cc: John , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: simple zfs query X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:06:04 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 24/03/2010 21:23:54, krad wrote: > If you want 100% of the drives you could have a pool per drive. Its not as > nice as one big pool, but its less risky than one big raid0 Errr... no it's not. The risk of something going wrong is exactly the same. The only advantage is that you may have less data to restore when things do go wrong. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkurJ3MACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyjLwCfdkpLP2MvtWPWBOE4Db/bJRNR tBkAnRA2ZcoGN/LwGaoY9gfkNkdOq6kE =O87f -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----