Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:20:26 +0100 From: Olivier Smedts <olivier@gid0.org> To: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: raidz configuration Message-ID: <367b2c980911290920x570a3164o54fb1b61a65c8189@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B11C7A1.1040801@andric.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911281619570.1379@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet> <4B11C7A1.1040801@andric.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/11/29 Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com>: > On 2009-11-28 23:22, Wes Morgan wrote: >> Simple question: >> >> 8 devices in a raidz2 >> or >> 4 devices in a raidz x 2 > > With the first configuration, any two drives can fail, and all data is > still preserved. > > With the second configuration, if two drives fail within the same RAID > set, you are screwed. A raidz on top of four zfs mirrors would be better (ie raid1+0 vs raid 0+1). > > E.g., if safety is your concern, I would definitely choose the first > configuration. :) > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Olivier Smedts _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) e-mail: olivier@gid0.org - against HTML email & vCards X www: http://www.gid0.org - against proprietary attachments / \ "Il y a seulement 10 sortes de gens dans le monde : ceux qui comprennent le binaire, et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?367b2c980911290920x570a3164o54fb1b61a65c8189>