On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Lars-Gunnar Persson wrote:
My conclusion on raidz1 vs raidz2 would be no difference in performance and big difference in disk space available.
I am not so sure about the "big difference" in disk space available. Disk capacity is cheap, but failure is not.
If you need to make up the difference in disk space, then use raidz2 and don't allocate any spare disks. Just make sure that you have a spare disk drive handy, or will be able to purchase one in a reasonable amount of time.
With raidz1 or RAID5 you are left feeling naked and exposed as soon as one disk fails, and you realize that the remaining disk drives will need to work perfectly in order to preserve your data. With raidz2, losing a single disk drive does not leave you naked and exposed.
Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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
