On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:26:51 -0500 Nikolai Lifanov <[email protected]> wrote:
> You will have a much better experience adding disks to HAMMER than > ZFS. HAMMER relies on hardware raid for redundancy, and you can just > add "hammer volume-add" new disks and it will concatenate them. > With ZFS, you have to add disks one leg at a time. So, with a > triple-parity raid10 with 2 legs (6 disks), you will have to add 3 > disks at a time. To a raidz2 with 8 disks, you will need to add 8 at > a time... You get the picture. I wasn't going to use a hardware RAID at all. A friend of mine works for a company that builds and installs servers and workstations in all sorts of firms. They often use RAID controllers and judging by the amount of failures they encounter (and I don't even think he told me all the stories there are to tell), I don't see any real advantages in hardware RAID. Quite often I get to hear stories about a disc dying and the RAID controller refusing to accept a replacement and rebuild the RAID, although the drive is of same make and model. I'll give software RAID a chance. I wasn't going to create a RAID10 with parity. This is cold storage and offsite backups exist. I have been using "simple" UFS up until now. I wanted to make a raidz2, which is basicly like a RAID6 (striping, double-parity, no mirroring). The minimum starter consists of 4 HDs. This should be easier to grow. When using FreeBSD this can be setup with ZFS alone. AFAIK HAMMER will need the LVM for the volumes. Can I still grow the RAID as I need it (one disc at a time)? Kind regards, Cassi
