Ah, okay, that makes sense. I wasn't offended, just confused. :)
Thanks for the clarification
On Oct 13, 2012 2:01 AM, "Jim Klimov" <jimkli...@cos.ru> wrote:
> 2012-10-12 19:34, Freddie Cash пишет:
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Jim Klimov <jimkli...@cos.ru> wrote:
>>> In fact, you can (although not recommended due to balancing reasons)
>>> have tlvdevs of mixed size (like in Freddie's example) and even of
>>> different structure (i.e. mixing raidz and mirrors or even single
>>> LUNs) by forcing the disk attachment.
>> My example shows 4 raidz2 vdevs, with each vdev having 6 disks, along
>> with a log vdev, and a cache vdev. Not sure where you're seeing an
>> imbalance. Maybe it's because the pool is currently resilvering a
>> drive, thus making it look like one of the vdevs has 7 drives?
> No, my comment was about this pool having an 8Tb TLVDEV and
> several 5.5Tb TLVDEVs - and that this kind of setup is quite
> valid for ZFS - and that while striping data across disks
> it can actually do better than round-robin, giving more data
> to the larger components. But more weight on one side is
> called imbalance ;)
> Sorry if my using your example offended you somehow.
> zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss mailing list