> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov > > Availability of the DDT is IMHO crucial to a deduped pool, so > I won't be surprised to see it forced to triple copies.
Agreed, although, the DDT is also paramount to performance. In theory, an online dedup'd pool could be much faster than non-dedup'd pools, or offline dedup'd pools. So there's a lot of potential here - Lost potential at the present. IMHO, the more important thing for dedup moving forward is to create an option to dedicate a fast device (SSD or whatever) to the DDT. So all those little random IO operations never hit the rusty side of the pool. Personally, I've never been supportive of the whole "copies" idea. If you need more than one redundant copy of some data, that's why you have pool redundancy. You're just hurting performance by using "copies." And protecting against failure conditions that are otherwise nearly nonexistent... And just as easily solved (without performance penalty) via pool redundancy. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss