On Jul 27, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Jack Kielsmeier wrote: > The only other zfs pool in my system is a mirrored rpool (2 500 gb disks). > This is for my own personal use, so it's not like the data is mission > critical in some sort of production environment. > > The advantage I can see with going with raidz2 + spare over raidz3 and no > spare is I would spend much less time running in a degraded state when a > drive fails (I'd have to RMA the drive and wait most likely a week or more > for a replacement).
raidz3 with no spare will be better than raidz2+spare in all single-set cases. > The disadvantage of raidz2 + spare is the event of a triple disk failure. > This is most likely not going to occur with 9 disks, but certainly is > possible. If 3 disks fail before one can be rebuilt with the spare, the data > will be lost. > > So, I guess the main question I have is, how much a performance hit is > noticed when a raidz3 array is running in a degraded state? The performance will be similar, but in the non-degraded case, the raidz3 will perform better for small, random reads. -- richard -- Richard Elling rich...@nexenta.com +1-760-896-4422 Enterprise class storage for everyone www.nexenta.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
