I think as far as data integrity and complete volume loss is most likely
in the following order:
1. 1x Raidz(7+1)
2. 2x RaidZ(3+1)
3. 1x Raidz2(6+2)
Simple raidz certainly is an option with only 8 disks (8 is about the
maximum I would go) but to be honest I would feel safer going raidz2.
The 2x raidz (3+1) would probably perform the best but I would prefer
going with the 3rd option (raidz2) as it is better for redundancy. With
raidz2 any two disks can fail and with dual parity if you get some
un-recoverable read errors during a scrub you have a much better chance
of not having corruption due to the double parity on the same set of data.
On 02/06/2011 06:45 PM, Matthew Angelo wrote:
I require a new high capacity 8 disk zpool. The disks I will be
purchasing (Samsung or Hitachi) have an Error Rate (non-recoverable,
bits read) of 1 in 10^14 and will be 2TB. I'm staying clear of WD
because they have the new 2048b sectors which don't play nice with ZFS
at the moment.
My question is, how do I determine which of the following zpool and
vdev configuration I should run to maximize space whilst mitigating
rebuild failure risk?
1. 2x RAIDZ(3+1) vdev
2. 1x RAIDZ(7+1) vdev
3. 1x RAIDZ2(7+1) vdev
I just want to prove I shouldn't run a plain old RAID5 (RAIDZ) with 8x
2TB disks.
Cheers
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
