On 2009-Jul-09 15:39:35 +0300, Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter
Jeremypeterjer...@optushome.com.au wrote:
On 2009-Jul-09 15:39:35 +0300, Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com 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
On 2009-07-11 10:40, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2009-Jul-09 15:39:35 +0300, Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com 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,
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Peter Jeremy
peterjer...@optushome.com.auwrote:
On 2009-Jul-09 15:39:35 +0300, Dan Naumov dan.nau...@gmail.com 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
Hi, all,
I just wanted to say a big big thank you to Kip and all the
developers who made ZFS on FreeBSD real.
And to everyone who provided helpful comments in the
last couple of days.
I had to delete and rebuild my zpool to switch from a
12-disk raidz2 to two 6-disk ones, but yesterday I could
On Thu, July 9, 2009 08:25, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Hi, all,
I just wanted to say a big big thank you to Kip and all the
developers who made ZFS on FreeBSD real.
And to everyone who provided helpful comments in the
last couple of days.
I had to delete and rebuild my zpool to switch from
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nenhum_de_Nosmath...@eternamente.info wrote:
On Thu, July 9, 2009 08:25, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Hi, all,
I just wanted to say a big big thank you to Kip and all the
developers who made ZFS on FreeBSD real.
And to everyone who provided helpful comments in
On Thu, July 9, 2009 09:25, Dan Naumov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nenhum_de_Nosmath...@eternamente.info
wrote:
On Thu, July 9, 2009 08:25, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Hi, all,
I just wanted to say a big big thank you to Kip and all the
developers who made ZFS on FreeBSD real.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Nenhum_de_Nosmath...@eternamente.info wrote:
On Thu, July 9, 2009 09:25, Dan Naumov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nenhum_de_Nosmath...@eternamente.info
wrote:
On Thu, July 9, 2009 08:25, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Hi, all,
I just wanted to say a big
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:17:35AM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
So now we have this setup:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
zfsONLINE 0 0 0
raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0
label/disk100 ONLINE 0
not HW RAID to be (a lot) more efficient?
Which would be the wrong side of using HW RAID with ZFS?
Thanks,
Tonino
--
in...@zioniInterazioni di Antonio Nati
http://www.interazioni.it to...@interazioni.it
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 03:21:48PM +0200, Tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
I see a lot of people advicing to use ZFS RAID instead of HW RAID.
I'm going to use HP duplicated iSCSI subsystems, which have autonomous
RAID, so I'm confused about this advice.
Following the ZFS RAID stream,
Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
So we switched to GEOM for mirroring a long time ago for
one simple reason: hardware replacement.
Amen.
Steve
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
You cannot escape the poor write performance of RAID 5 and
comparable setups with or without hardware. No matter how
much you cache, one time a block must be written to disk.
ZFS RAIDZ works differently: It is based on variable-sized blocks
written to the disks based
14 matches
Mail list logo
