On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote: >> Thanks for your comments. FWIW, I am building an >> actual hardware array, so een though I _may_ put ZFS >> on top of the hardware arrays 22TB "drive" that the >> OS sees (I may not) I am focusing purely on the >> controller rebuild. > > Not letting ZFS handle (at least one level of) redundancy is a bad > idea. Don't do that!
Agreed. A further issue to consider is mean time to recover/restore. This has quite a lot to do with actual uptime. For example, if you decide to create two huge 22TB LUNs and mirror across them, if ZFS needs to resilver one of the LUNs it will take a *long* time. A good design will try to keep any storage area which needs to be resilvered small enough that it may be restored quickly and risk of secondary failure is minimized. Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
