On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 07:29:08PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > >> IMO the cost savings for parity RAID trumps everything unless money > >> just isn't a factor. > > > > Cost saving compared to what? In my four-bay-scenario, mirror and raidz2 > > yield the same available space (I hope so). > > > > Sure, if you only have 4 drives and run raid6/z2 then it is no more > efficient than mirroring. That said, it does provide more security > because raidz2 can tolerate the failure of any two disks, while > 2xraid1 or raid10 can tolerate only half of the combinations of two > disks.
Ooooh, I just came up with another good reason for raidz over mirror: I don't encrypt my drives because it doesn't hold sensitive stuff. (AFAIK native ZFS encryption is available in Oracle ZFS, so it might eventually come to the Linux world). So in case I ever need to send in a drive for repair/replacement, noone can read from it (or only in tiny bits'n'pieces from a hexdump), because each disk contains a mix of data and parity blocks. I think I'm finally sold. :) And with that, good night. -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. “I think Leopard is a much better system [than Windows Vista] … but OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary.” – Linus Torvalds
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
