Shouldn't the choice of RAID type also be based on the i/o requirements? Anyway, with RAID-10, even a second failed disk is not catastophic, so long as it is not the counterpart of the first failed disk, no matter the no. of disks. (With 2-way mirrors.)
But that's why we do backups, right? Mark Sent from my iPhone On Aug 6, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Orvar Korvar <knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ok, so mirrors resilver faster. > > But, it is not uncommon that another disk shows problem during resilver (for > instance r/w errors), this scenario would mean your entire raid is gone, > right? If you are using mirrors, and one disk crashes and you start resilver. > Then the other disk shows r/w errors because of the increased load - then you > are screwed? Because large disks take long time to resilver, possibly weeks? > > In that case, it would be preferable to use mirrors with 3 disks in each > vdev. Trimorrs. Each vdev should be one raidz3. > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > 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
