On 8/10/16 6:54 , Rob Seastrom wrote: > > Apologies if a duplicate somehow makes it through; I accidentally sent > previously from my non-lists account (which is not subscribed). > > Back before you got much of an install-time layout choice on the zpool, I set > up some 1u machines with raidz2 on a 4 x LFF disk array by going behind > SmartOS' back and creating the pool, then zfs send | zfs recv for the entire > old zones pool. > > Machines I set up this way have been working fine for years, with > acceptable-to-us performance (yes, obviously it could always be better). We > like raidz2 because of the location of these machines and our travel > schedules - if a disk croaks it might be a week or two until it's possible to > replace and resilver. > > Here in the future with specifyable raidz type on install, SmartOS says "no > acceptable raidz2 layout" when I try to set up that complement of disks. > > A trivial change at node_modules/disklayout.js line 325 would fix this > problem by including 4 drives in the special case that already handles 5 and > 6, but just making the change and issuing a pull request without explaining > my situation and getting consensus that this is in fact a proper thing to do, > seems unlikely to get the results I want. > > Any thoughts on how we could accommodate setting up raidz2 on 4 drives as > part of a normal install without screwing up other folks' workflow or other > deleterious side effects?
If the end result of the code allowed a 4 disk raidz2 to do the right thing without changing the default behavior for that number of disks, I think that'd likely be fine. Robert ------------------------------------------- smartos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/25769125-55cfbc00 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=25769125&id_secret=25769125-7688e9fb Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
