Why two mirrors and not a RAID5 - or is RAID6 more appropriate 4T?
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 11:51:58 -0400 > ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: > >> I just replaced a bad drive with sdk. I've had this configuration >> since 2T hard disks became afordable. It's not getting on in years, >> and I'm only getting 4T, but it is redundant. The logs and cache >> drives are ssd. > > root@marller:~# zpool status > pool: zfs > state: ONLINE > scan: scrub repaired 0B in 07:56:10 with 0 errors on Sun Jul 10 08:20:11 > 2022 > config: > > NAME STATE READ WRITE > CKSUM > zfs ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > ata-WDC_WD40EFRX-68N32N0_WD-WCC7K2DCAHVT ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > ata-WDC_WD40EFRX-68N32N0_WD-WCC7K2ZE8257 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > ata-WDC_WD40EFRX-68N32N0_WD-WCC7K2SZ8AVP ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > ata-WDC_WD40EFRX-68N32N0_WD-WCC7K4ADA716 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > cache > ata-Crucial_CT250MX200SSD4_15100EE96B90-part3 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > > I have four 4T drives, 16T raw, in pairs so 8T usable. The OS drive on > the current incarnation is a 250GB NVMe (hand me down from another > machine). Since I only need a small portion of the space for the OS I > carved out a 100GB partition to use as cache (L2ARC). > > -- > \m/ (--) \m/ > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
