On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2011-Feb-07 14:22:51 +0800, Matthew Angelo bang...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm actually more leaning towards running a simple 7+1 RAIDZ1.
Running this with 1TB is not a
On Feb 14, 2011 6:56 AM, Paul Kraus p...@kraus-haus.org wrote:
P.S. I am measuring number of objects via `zdb -d` as that is faster
than trying to count files and directories and I expect is a much
better measure of what the underlying zfs code is dealing with (a
particular dataset may have
I think as far as data integrity and complete volume loss is most likely
in the following order:
1. 1x Raidz(7+1)
2. 2x RaidZ(3+1)
3. 1x Raidz2(6+2)
Simple raidz certainly is an option with only 8 disks (8 is about the
maximum I would go) but to be honest I would feel safer going raidz2.
The
On 2011-Feb-07 14:22:51 +0800, Matthew Angelo bang...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm actually more leaning towards running a simple 7+1 RAIDZ1.
Running this with 1TB is not a problem but I just wanted to
investigate at what TB size the scales would tip.
It's not that simple. Whilst resilver time is
On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2011-Feb-07 14:22:51 +0800, Matthew Angelo bang...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm actually more leaning towards running a simple 7+1 RAIDZ1.
Running this with 1TB is not a problem but I just wanted to
investigate at what TB size the scales would tip.
I require a new high capacity 8 disk zpool. The disks I will be
purchasing (Samsung or Hitachi) have an Error Rate (non-recoverable,
bits read) of 1 in 10^14 and will be 2TB. I'm staying clear of WD
because they have the new 2048b sectors which don't play nice with ZFS
at the moment.
My
On 02/ 7/11 03:45 PM, Matthew Angelo wrote:
I require a new high capacity 8 disk zpool. The disks I will be
purchasing (Samsung or Hitachi) have an Error Rate (non-recoverable,
bits read) of 1 in 10^14 and will be 2TB. I'm staying clear of WD
because they have the new 2048b sectors which
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Angelo
My question is, how do I determine which of the following zpool and
vdev configuration I should run to maximize space whilst mitigating
rebuild failure risk?
1. 2x
Yes I did mean 6+2, Thank you for fixing the typo.
I'm actually more leaning towards running a simple 7+1 RAIDZ1.
Running this with 1TB is not a problem but I just wanted to
investigate at what TB size the scales would tip. I understand
RAIDZ2 protects against failures during a rebuild process.
On Feb 6, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Matthew Angelo wrote:
I require a new high capacity 8 disk zpool. The disks I will be
purchasing (Samsung or Hitachi) have an Error Rate (non-recoverable,
bits read) of 1 in 10^14 and will be 2TB. I'm staying clear of WD
because they have the new 2048b sectors
10 matches
Mail list logo
