Chris Cosby wrote:
I'm going down a bit of a different path with my reply here. I know that all
shops and their need for data are different, but hear me out.
1) You're backing up 40TB+ of data, increasing at 20-25% per year. That's
insane. Perhaps it's time to look at your backup strategy no from
Chris Cosby ccosby+zfs at gmail.com writes:
You're backing up 40TB+ of data, increasing at 20-25% per year.
That's insane.
Over time, backing up his data will require _fewer_ and fewer disks.
Disk sizes increase by about 40% every year.
-marc
Hi,
I am looking for some best practice advice on a project that i am working on.
We are looking at migrating ~40TB backup data to ZFS, with an annual data
growth of
20-25%.
Now, my initial plan was to create one large pool comprised of X RAIDZ-2 vdevs
( 7 + 2 )
with one hotspare per 10
Don Enrique wrote:
Now, my initial plan was to create one large pool comprised of X RAIDZ-2
vdevs ( 7 + 2 )
with one hotspare per 10 drives and just continue to expand that pool as
needed.
Between calculating the MTTDL and performance models i was hit by a rather
scary thought.
A
Don Enrique wrote:
Now, my initial plan was to create one large pool
comprised of X RAIDZ-2 vdevs ( 7 + 2 )
with one hotspare per 10 drives and just continue
to expand that pool as needed.
Between calculating the MTTDL and performance
models i was hit by a rather scary thought.
A
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Don Enrique wrote:
This means that i potentially could loose 40TB+ of data if three
disks within the same RAIDZ-2 vdev should die before the resilvering
of at least one disk is complete. Since most disks will be filled i
do expect rather long resilvering times.
Yes,
I'm going down a bit of a different path with my reply here. I know that all
shops and their need for data are different, but hear me out.
1) You're backing up 40TB+ of data, increasing at 20-25% per year. That's
insane. Perhaps it's time to look at your backup strategy no from a hardware
djm == Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bf == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
djm Why are you planning on using RAIDZ-2 rather than mirroring ?
isn't MTDL sometimes shorter for mirroring than raidz2? I think that
is the biggest point of raidz2, is it not?
bf The
[Richard Elling] wrote:
Don Enrique wrote:
Hi,
I am looking for some best practice advice on a project that i am working on.
We are looking at migrating ~40TB backup data to ZFS, with an annual data
growth of
20-25%.
Now, my initial plan was to create one large pool comprised of X
Miles Nordin wrote:
djm == Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bf == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
djm Why are you planning on using RAIDZ-2 rather than mirroring ?
isn't MTDL sometimes shorter for mirroring than raidz2? I think that
is the biggest point
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Richard Elling wrote:
nit: SATA disks are single port, so you would need a SAS
implementation to get multipathing to the disks. This will not
significantly impact the overall availability of the data, however.
I did an availability analysis of thumper to show this.
11 matches
Mail list logo
