On 25 March 2010 09:05, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 24/03/2010 21:23:54, krad wrote:
> > If you want 100% of the drives you could have a pool per drive. Its not
> as
> > nice as one big pool, but its less risky than one big raid0
>
> Errr... no it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24/03/2010 21:23:54, krad wrote:
> If you want 100% of the drives you could have a pool per drive. Its not as
> nice as one big pool, but its less risky than one big raid0
Errr... no it's not. The risk of something going wrong is exactly the
same.
On 24 March 2010 11:33, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 24/03/2010 10:31:51, John wrote:
> > With ZFS and 3x 2Tb SATA disks, what percentage of theoretical diskspace
> > would I realise? I'm hoping at least 5Tb would be usable?
>
> That depends on how
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24/03/2010 10:31:51, John wrote:
> With ZFS and 3x 2Tb SATA disks, what percentage of theoretical diskspace
> would I realise? I'm hoping at least 5Tb would be usable?
That depends on how you configure your zpool. The choices are:
disk -- just u
Hello list,
With ZFS and 3x 2Tb SATA disks, what percentage of theoretical diskspace
would I realise? I'm hoping at least 5Tb would be usable?
thanks
--
John - comp dot john at googlemail dot com
OpenBSD firewall | FreeBSD desktop | Ubuntu Karmic laptop
GPG: 0xF08A33C5
__
