On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:01:35AM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Suppose they gave you two huge lumps of storage from the SAN, and you
mirrored them with ZFS. What would you do if ZFS reported that one of
its two disks had failed and needed to be replaced? You can't do disk
management
Alexander Skwar wrote:
Okay. This contradicts the ZFS Best Practices Guide,
which states:
# For production environments, configure ZFS so that
# it can repair data inconsistencies. Use ZFS
redundancy,
# such as RAIDZ, RAIDZ-2, RAIDZ-3, mirror, or copies
1,
# regardless of the RAID level
Hello.
2010/9/24 Marty Scholes martyscho...@yahoo.com:
ZFS will ensure integrity, even when the underlying device fumbles.
Yes.
When you mirror the iSCSI devices, be sure that they are configured
in such a way that a failure on one iSCSI device does not imply a
failure on the other iSCSI
Hello again!
2010/9/24 Gary Mills mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:01:35AM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Yes. I was rather thinking about RAIDZ instead of mirroring.
I was just using a simpler example.
Understood. Like I just wrote, we're actually now going
to use
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:48:09PM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
We're using ZFS via iSCSI on a S10U8 system. As the ZFS Best
Practices Guide http://j.mp/zfs-bp states, it's advisable to use
redundancy (ie. RAIDZ, mirroring or whatnot), even if the underlying
storage does its own RAID thing.
Hi!
2010/9/23 Gary Mills mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:48:09PM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
We're using ZFS via iSCSI on a S10U8 system. As the ZFS Best
Practices Guide http://j.mp/zfs-bp states, it's advisable to use
redundancy (ie. RAIDZ, mirroring or whatnot),
