I'm playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my 6x
300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my data at
home (video, photos, music, etc). I'm debating between:
6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool
--or--
2x (3x 300GB disks in a pool) mirrored
Joe S wrote:
I'm playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my
6x 300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my
data at home (video, photos, music, etc). I'm debating between:
6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool
--or--
2x (3x 300GB disks in a
Joe S js.lists at gmail.com writes:
I'm going to create 3x 2-way mirrors. I guess I don't really *need* the
raidz at this point. My biggest concern with raidz is getting locked into
a configuration i can't grow out of. I like the idea of adding more
2 way mirrors to a pool.
The raidz2
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Will Murnane wrote:
On 6/15/07, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alec Muffett wrote:
2) I've considered pivot-root solutions based around a USB stick or
drive; cute, but I want a single tower box and no dongles
You could buy a laptop disk, or mount one of these on
On 16 June, 2007 - George sent me these 1,1K bytes:
Where can you find the timeframe on that Tomas?
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6460622
/Tomas
--
Tomas Ögren, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`-
My understanding is that if I create a 6 disk raidz2,
# zpool create tank raidz2 disk0 disk1 disk2 disk3 disk4 disk5
I cannot add more disks to this set. I cannot expand this. I have to destroy
the raidz2 it and recreate it if I want to increase capacity.
Whereas with 2 way mirrors, i can just
ok if its just storing stuff raidz2 is probably the best use of space.
raidz2 on 5 disk and one spare - this can take 3 disk failing before you lose
your data.
The three strip mirror will give you nice performance but from the sounds of it
you don't need it.
This message posted from
The Pentium 4 D have 64bit in them (ok not the bottom one)
So you can have your Pentium 4D running in 64bit mode.
Are you buying both kit or do you already have one of these boxes?
Also how many users are going to be using this file server?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Joe S wrote:
I'm playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my 6x
300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my data
at home (video, photos, music, etc). I'm debating between:
6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool
--or--
2x (3x 300GB disks in a
Ah, so you are the Richard behind those articles I've been mulling over! :-)
You blog posts helped me to realize there was much more forethought required
when setting up my ZFS pool(s).
I'm glad I'm not the only person with this question.
Whatever I decide, I will include in this thread.
On
I'm going to try 5 disks in raidz2 with 1 hot spare.
I read about this here:
http://prefetch.net/blog/index.php/2007/02/09/using-raidz2-and-hot-spares-on-older-sun-storage-arrays/
I don't have older disks, but they are consumer grade disks, and I've been
bitten by disks going dead before, thus
Hi Victor,
the kernel panic in bug 6424466 resulted from overwriting some areas of the
disks, in this case I would expect at least strange things - ok, not exactly a
panic. In my case there was no messsing around with the underlying disks. The
fix only seems to avoid the panic and mentions no
last number (2.99x) is compression ratio and was much better than lzjb.
not sure if there is some mistake here, i was quite surprised that it was so
much better than lzjb
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:22:34PM -0700, Darren Dunham wrote:
The configuration of any vdev that you create does not constrain you
with any vdevs you want to add to the pool in the future. You can start
with any of your three choices above and then add any of the other three
to the same
And the posts related to leopard handed out at wwdc 07 seems to
indicate that zfs is not yet fully implemented, which might be the
real reason that zfs isn't the default fs.
I suspect there are two other strong reasons why it's not the default.
1. ZFS is a new and immature file system. HFS+ has
Those are interesting results. Does this mean you've already written lzo
support into ZFS? If not, that would be a great next step -- licensing
issues can be sorted out later...
Adam
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:40:48AM -0700, roland wrote:
btw - is there some way to directly compare lzjb vs lzo
Here's one possible reason that a read-only ZFS would be useful: DVD-ROM
distribution.
Sector errors on DVD are not uncommon. Writing a DVD in ZFS format with
duplicated data blocks would help protect against that problem, at the cost of
50% or so disk space. That sounds like a lot, but with
Anton B. Rang wrote:
Here's one possible reason that a read-only ZFS would be useful: DVD-ROM
distribution.
built-in compression works for DVDs, too.
Sector errors on DVD are not uncommon. Writing a DVD in ZFS format with
duplicated data blocks would help protect against that problem, at
18 matches
Mail list logo
