Ahoy. I just thought I'd add a data point to the mix. I have an
11-disk v13 pool comprised of 400-GB disks on an 8.1 amd64 system and
the machine behaves just fine with it:
# zpool status
pool: archive
state: ONLINE
status: The pool is formatted using an older on-disk format. The pool can
still be used, but some features are unavailable.
action: Upgrade the pool using 'zpool upgrade'. Once this is done, the
pool will no longer be accessible on older software versions.
scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Fri Oct 8
17:56:52 2010
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
archive ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
ad4 ONLINE 0 0 0 133K resilvered
ad6 ONLINE 0 0 0 84K resilvered
ad8 ONLINE 0 0 0 85.5K resilvered
ad10 ONLINE 0 0 0 84.5K resilvered
ad12 ONLINE 0 0 0 88K resilvered
ad14 ONLINE 0 0 0 83.5K resilvered
ad16 ONLINE 0 0 0 83K resilvered
ad18 ONLINE 0 0 0 84.5K resilvered
ad20 ONLINE 0 0 0 85.5K resilvered
ad22 ONLINE 0 0 0 84K resilvered
ad24 ONLINE 0 0 0 86.5K resilvered
errors: No known data errors
-Boris
On 10/20/10 13:26, Sean Thomas Caron wrote:
Hi Lawrence,
Interesting; have you tried this for raidz2 as well?
I just created a raidz2 pool with 5 disks and then added another 5
disk raidz2 to it, so, total of 10 disks in the pool (though this is
ultimately a losing strategy unless the number of disks is >> 9
because two drives are lost for parity in each sub-raid in the pool).
It (seemed) just slightly more stable than creating a single raidz2
pool with > 9 disks but it still crashes.
I guess this does allow me to say its more an issue of number of
devices in the pool versus capacity of the pool because with the
parity drives taken out, the pool with two 5-disk raidz2s has less
total capacity than a pool with a single 9-disk raidz2.
Just out of idle curiousity, I also tried it with raidz1 on my system.
Again, I created a 5-disk pool, raidz1 this time, then added another
5-disk raidz1 to the pool for, again, total of 10 disks.
Again, a bit of a losing strategy versus creating one great big raidz
unless the number of disks is >> 9 because of losing a disk in each
sub-raidz1 in the pool for parity but less so of course than raidz2.
This seemed to crash too, same behavior.
Are you using 8.1-RELEASE or STABLE or ...?
Best,
-Sean
I have a 16 disk pool, if you create it with
zpool create poolname raidz disk1 disk2 disk3 etc
then
zpool add poolname raidz disk8 disk9 disk10 etc
You get the full size pool and no issues.
pool: tank
state: ONLINE
scan: scrub repaired 0 in 0h0m with 0 errors on Wed Oct 20 14:54:08
2010
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
tank ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
da0 ONLINE 0 0 0
da1 ONLINE 0 0 0
da2 ONLINE 0 0 0
da3 ONLINE 0 0 0
da4 ONLINE 0 0 0
da5 ONLINE 0 0 0
da6 ONLINE 0 0 0
da7 ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1-1 ONLINE 0 0 0
da8 ONLINE 0 0 0
da9 ONLINE 0 0 0
da10 ONLINE 0 0 0
da11 ONLINE 0 0 0
da12 ONLINE 0 0 0
da13 ONLINE 0 0 0
da14 ONLINE 0 0 0
da15 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
