On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 at 09:29, Pouya Tafti <pouya+lists.net...@nohup.io> wrote: > > Thanks! This is an interesting suggestion. I'm > > wondering though, wouldn't having a two-drive mirror create > > an assymmetry in how many failed drives you could tolerate? > > If you lost both mirrors the whole pool would be gone (I > > assume disks of the same origin may have correlated > > failures). > > > > But as you say, the 6x RAIDZ2 is worth considering and > > it may be smarter not to use all the disks. ;) >
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 10:16:15AM +0100, David Brownlee wrote: > Well the 6x RAIDZ2 gives the same usable space, leaving the simple > mirror for some additional scratch space for less critical data :) Ah, that indeed makes sense. I originally misunderstood and thought you were suggesting a single pool made of a RAIDZ2 and a mirror VDEV. I think I'll follow your approach with a 6x RAIDZ2. If I need more space later on I can always add another disk array. Thanks again for the suggestion! :)
