Hi,
Thanks for the quick reply. Now that you have mentioned , we have a
different issue. What is the advantage of using spare disks instead of
including them in the raid-z array? If the system pool is on mirrored disks,
I think that this would be enough (hopefully). When one disk fails, isn't
it
On 29 November 2010 15:03, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
I'd have to re-look at the ZFS Best Practices Guide, but I'm pretty sure
the recommendation of 7, 9, or 11 disks was for a raidz1, NOT a raidz2. Due
to #5 above, best performance comes with an EVEN number of data disks in
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Erik Trimble
(1) Unless you are using Zvols for raw disk partitions (for use with
something like a database), the recordsize value is a MAXIMUM value, NOT
an absolute value. Thus, if you
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Piscuc
looks promising. One element that we cannot determine is the optimum
number of disks in a raid-z pool. In the ZFS best practice guide, 7,9 and
11
There are several important
Hi,
We are a company that want to replace our current storage layout with one
that uses ZFS. We have been testing it for a month now, and everything looks
promising. One element that we cannot determine is the optimum number of
disks in a raid-z pool. In the ZFS best practice guide, 7,9 and 11
On 11/28/2010 1:51 PM, Paul Piscuc wrote:
Hi,
We are a company that want to replace our current storage layout with
one that uses ZFS. We have been testing it for a month now, and
everything looks promising. One element that we cannot determine is
the optimum number of disks in a raid-z
