On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Damien Fleuriot <[email protected]> wrote: > Well actually... > > raidz2: > - 7x 1.5 tb = 10.5tb > - 2 parity drives > > raidz1: > - 3x 1.5 tb = 4.5 tb > - 4x 1.5 tb = 6 tb , total 10.5tb > - 2 parity drives in split thus different raidz1 arrays > > So really, in both cases 2 different parity drives and same storage...
In second case you get better performance, but lose some data protection. It's still raidz1 and you can't guarantee functionality in all cases of two drives failing. If two drives fail in the same vdev, your entire pool will be gone. Granted, it's better than single-vdev raidz1, but it's *not* as good as raidz2. --Artem _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
