On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:42:21AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> >Yes, and while it's not an immediate showstopper for me, I'll want to
> >know that expansion is coming imminently before I adopt RAID-Z.
>
> [in brainstorming mode, sans coffee so far this morning]
>
> Better yet, buy two disks,
> Of course when it's time to upgrade you can always
> just call sun and get a Thumper on a "Try before you
> Buy" - and use it as a temporary storage space for
> your files while you re-do your raidz/raidz2 virtual
> device from scratch with an additional disk. zfs
> send/zfs recieve here I come..
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:42 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> [in brainstorming mode, sans coffee so far this morning]
>
> Better yet, buy two disks, say 500 GByte. Need more space, replace
> them with 750 GByte, because by then the price of the 750 GByte disks
> will be as low as the 250 GByte disk
David Abrahams wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam Leventhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm not sure I even agree with the notion that this is a real
problem (and if it is, I don't think is easily solved). Stripe
widths are a function of the expected failure rate and
comfortable with having 2 parity drives for 12 disks,
the thread starting config of 4 disks per controller(?):
zpool create tank raidz2 c1t1d0 c1t2d0 c1t3d0 c1t4d0c2t1d0 c2t2d0
then later
zpool add tank raidz2 c2t3d0 c2t4d0 c3t1d0 c3t2d0 c3t3d0 c3t4d0
as described, doubles ones IOPs,
Of course when it's time to upgrade you can always just call sun and get a
Thumper on a "Try before you Buy" - and use it as a temporary storage space for
your files while you re-do your raidz/raidz2 virtual device from scratch with
an additional disk. zfs send/zfs recieve here I come.
Not
David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam Leventhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure I even agree with the notion that this is a real
>> problem (and if it is, I don't think is easily solved). Stripe
>> widths are a function of the expected failure rate and fault domains
>>
Jeff Bonwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The main issues are administrative. ZFS is all about ease of use
> (when it's not busy being all about data integrity), so getting the
> interface to be simple and intuitive is important -- and not as
> simple as it sounds. If your free disk space might
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
It's easy to corrupt the volume, though -- just copy random data over
*two* disks of a RAIDZ volume. Okay, you have to either do the whole
volume, or get a little lucky to hit both copies of some piece of
information before you get corruption. Or pull two disks out of t
Luke Scharf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for the claims, I don't buy that it's impossible to corrupt a ZFS
> volume. I've replicated the demo where the guy dd's /dev/urandom
> over part of the disk, and I believe that works -- but there are a
> lot of other ways to corrupt a filesystem in the
David Abrahams wrote:
I've seen people wondering if ZFS was a scam because the claims just
seemed too good to be true. Given that ZFS *is* really great, I don't
think it would hurt to prominently advertise limitations like this one
it would probably benefit credibility considerably, and it's a r
If it was possible to implement raidz/raidz2 expansion it would be a big
feature in favor of ZFS. Most hardware RAID controllers have the ability to
expand a raid pool - some have to take the raid array offline, but the ones I
work with generally do it online, although you are forced to suffer t
David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It does, as you say, take up another whole parity disk (or two in your
> raidz2 case). And requires add-ons to be in units bigger than just
> one drive.
I've seen people wondering if ZFS was a scam because the claims just
seemed too good to be tru
13 matches
Mail list logo
