From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 8 16:08:20 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FD7C9CF for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.magehandbook.com (173-8-4-45-WashingtonDC.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.8.4.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5859726BC for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:08:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (Mac-Pro.magehandbook.com [192.168.1.50]) by mail.magehandbook.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3hVBLh5mzrz10T for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:08:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:08:12 -0400 From: Daniel Staal To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some ZFS questions Message-ID: <98315411DC9FD58E5A07BAF1@[192.168.1.50]> In-Reply-To: <201408080706.s78765xs022311@sdf.org> References: <201408070816.s778G9ug015988@sdf.org> <53E3A836.9080904@my.hennepintech.edu> <201408080706.s78765xs022311@sdf.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:08:20 -0000 --As of August 8, 2014 2:06:05 AM -0500, Scott Bennett is alleged to have said: >> > If I have one raidzN comprising .eli partitions and another raidzN >> > comprising a set of unencrypted partitions on those same drives, will >> > I be able to export both raidzN pools from a 9-STABLE system and then >> > import them into, say, a 10-STABLE system on a different Intel amd64 >> > machine? By your answer to question 1), it would seem that I need to >> > have two raidzN pools, although there might be a number of benefits to >> > having both encrypted and unencrypted file systems allocated inside a >> > single pool were that an option. >> Having any physical disk be a part of more than one pool is not >> recommended (except perhaps for cache and log devices where failure is >> not a big deal). Not only can it cause thrashing as you mentioned above, >> but one disk dying makes both pools degraded. Lose two disks, and you >> lose both pools. If you need only > > If ZFS has no way to prevent thrashing in that situation, then that > is a serious design deficiency in ZFS. ZFS groups IO into batches to try to help against thrashing (and to improve efficiency), which could help. But I'm not sure how it's supposed to work out when you give it two different devices that those are actually one device. While the normal 'preferred' setup for encrypting ZFS pools is to make the pool out of encrypted partitions, from your questions I'd argue that looking for ways to build the encryption on top of the zpool is probably the better route for you. (I think you should be able to do that with geli, though I can't say I've ever played with it.) Daniel T. Staal --------------------------------------------------------------- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. ---------------------------------------------------------------