From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 25 14:20:49 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 72695106566B for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:20:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f224.google.com (mail-fx0-f224.google.com [209.85.220.224]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C548FC0C for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm24 with SMTP id 24so3147460fxm.3 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:20:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=g4Gh2z11qSDa/wXW8o2jXJLrg69J2YAe2VnH+OfZi0M=; b=MJpVSi8Zk569IjUx3uznlGzfP9tmq1rWEgP5FnAtFC1Vs7w1RXTU7994Cypwe08j9E w8YaD/KKx0JuqXTjm64bf2yyBLs/3k+gyAxehhW+1V4RpH2TsYMzGRqjzHN85xf0CSc0 PXIz8QyniEfbwrv5xl39XmvyA6t1kr5tQ+lbI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=YP+DofQRFWYX44nLc23NvZoiot96fnfZ3Tg0d+I/HuIBpc/z6kRMPsvsWloAEmhwn5 1p/tkptgdEwsG3gX6ctJJ8GpDo4Rbdyi/dPElRWg4XJOw1KIIkn/xFQ6vOzNv6mIIbA7 +zJqRIp77wrs/uYjR1liS3zCZmYOoWSyDCBiI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.150.201 with SMTP id o9mr1833834hbb.151.1269526845192; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:20:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BAB2773.5060503@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20100324103151.GA2598@potato> <4BA9F87E.7050205@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4BAB2773.5060503@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:20:45 +0000 Message-ID: From: krad To: Matthew Seaman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 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 14:20:49 -0000 On 25 March 2010 09:05, Matthew Seaman wrote: > -----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----- > That was my point. Less to restore, less risk of stuff being out of date or corrupt. So less risk than a stripe. Marginal maybe i agree, but less all the same. You could also make copies=2 on the root pool fs if you are using one big stripe, to try and reduce the risk. However this is more wasteful than raidz