On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By Better I meant the best practice for a server running the Netbackup
> application.
>
> I am not seeing how using raidz would be a performance hit. Usually stripes
> perform faster than mirrors.
raidz performs reads from all de
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Mike wrote:
> I am not seeing how using raidz would be a performance hit. Usually
> stripes perform faster than mirrors.
The mirrors load-share and offer a lot more disk seeking capacity
(more IOPS).
Bob
==
Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Tomas Ögren wrote:
The raidz option will give you more storage at less performance.. The
mirror thing has the possibility of achieving higher reliability.. 1 to
3 disks can fail without interruptions, depending on how Murphy picks
them.. The raidz1 one can handle 1 disk only
By Better I meant the best practice for a server running the Netbackup
application.
I am not seeing how using raidz would be a performance hit. Usually stripes
perform faster than mirrors.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss ma
On 29 October, 2008 - Mike sent me these 0,7K bytes:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been asked to build a new server and would like to get some
> opinions on how to setup a zfs pool for the application running on the
> server. The server will be exclusively for running netbackup
> application.
>
> Now wh
Hi all,
I have been asked to build a new server and would like to get some opinions on
how to setup a zfs pool for the application running on the server. The server
will be exclusively for running netbackup application.
Now which would be better? setting up a raidz pool with 6x146gig drives or
