discussion list
*Subject:* Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration
Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with
3 disks came from the reading of
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gcvjg?a=view .
This particular page has the following example :
*zpool create tank raidz2
Of *Bruno Sousa
*Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:28 PM
*To:* Freddie Cash
*Cc:* ZFS filesystem discussion list
*Subject:* Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration
Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with
3 disks came from the reading of
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc
Cindy Swearingen wrote:
If someone new to ZFS wants to take 3 old (but reliable) disks and make
a raidz2 configuration for testing, we would not consider this is a
nonsensical idea. You can then apply what you learn about ZFS space
allocation and redundancy to a new configuration.
Nonsensical
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Carson Gaspar car...@taltos.org wrote:
Nonsensical may be a bit strong, but I can see no possible use case where
a 3 disk raidz2 isn't better served by a 3-way mirror.
Once bp_rewrite is done, you'll be able add disks to the raidz2. I suppose
that's one
Brandon High wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Carson Gaspar car...@taltos.org
mailto:car...@taltos.org wrote:
Nonsensical may be a bit strong, but I can see no possible use
case where a 3 disk raidz2 isn't better served by a 3-way mirror.
Once bp_rewrite is done, you'll be
...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Sousa
*Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:28 PM
*To:* Freddie Cash
*Cc:* ZFS filesystem discussion list
*Subject:* Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration
Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with 3
-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Sousa
*Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:28 PM
*To:* Freddie Cash
*Cc:* ZFS filesystem discussion list
*Subject:* Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration
Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with
3 disks came from
Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose of raidz2, as
you will always be in a degraded mode.
Freddie, are you nuts? This is false.
Sure you can use raidz2 with 3 disks in it. But it does seem pointless to do
that instead of a 3-way mirror.
Coolio. Learn something new everyday. One more way that raidz is
different from RAID5/6/etc.
Freddie, again, you're wrong. Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to create either
raid-5 or raidz using 2 disks. It's not degraded, but it does seem pointless
to do this instead of a mirror.
] On Behalf Of Bruno Sousa
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:28 PM
To: Freddie Cash
Cc: ZFS filesystem discussion list
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration
Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with 3 disks
came from the reading of http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc
On Fri, Mar 26 at 7:29, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose of raidz2, as
you will always be in a degraded mode.
Freddie, are you nuts? This is false.
Sure you can use raidz2 with 3 disks in it. But it does seem pointless to
do
On Fri, March 26, 2010 07:38, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Coolio. Learn something new everyday. One more way that raidz is
different from RAID5/6/etc.
Freddie, again, you're wrong. Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to create
either raid-5 or raidz using 2 disks. It's not degraded, but it does
Hi all,
Yet another question regarding raidz configuration..
Assuming a system with 24 disks available , having in mind reliability
as the crucial factor , secondary the usable space and finally
performance would be the last criteria, what would be the preferable
configuration ?
Should it be :
I think I would do 3xraidz3 with 8 disks and 0 hotspares.
That way you have a better chance of resolving bit rot issues that might become
apparent during a rebuild.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote:
Assuming a system with 24 disks available , having in mind reliability as
the crucial factor , secondary the usable space and finally performance
would be the last criteria, what would be the preferable configuration ?
Hi,
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the
purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ?
Does it means that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't be redundant in
the advent of a drive failure?
Indeed it may be too many spares...the discussion here
On 25-3-2010 15:28, Richard Jahnel wrote:
I think I would do 3xraidz3 with 8 disks and 0 hotspares.
That way you have a better chance of resolving bit rot issues that might
become apparent during a rebuild.
Indeed raidz3...i didn't consider it.
In short, a raidz3 could sustain 3 broken
Bruno Sousa wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the
purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ?
Does it means that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't be redundant in
the advent of a drive failure?
Technically a 3 disk raidz2 won't be
Well the thing I like about raidz3 is that even with 1 drive out you have 3
copies of all the blocks. So if you encounter bit rot, not only can checksums
be used to find the good data, you can still get a best 2 out of 3 vote on
which data is correct.
As to performance, all I can say is test
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the
purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ? Does it means
that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't be redundant in the advent of a
Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with 3
disks came from the reading of
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gcvjg?a=view .
This particular page has the following example :
*zpool create tank raidz2 c1t0d0 c2t0d0 c3t0d0*
# *zpool status -v tank*
pool: tank
On Mar 25, 2010, at 22:10, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com
wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats
the purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ?
Does it means that
On Mar 25, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose
of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ? Does it means that
having 2 vdevs
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 25, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com
wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the
purpose of
Freddie Cash wrote:
So, is it just a standard that hardware/software RAID setups require 3
drives for a RAID5 array? And 4 drives for RAID6?
It's padding on the sharp edges. See my earlier post - a 2 disk RAID5 is
silly, use a mirror. A 3 disk RAID6 is silly, use a 3-way mirror. Both
are
25 matches
Mail list logo
