> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Fajar A. Nugraha > > So my > suggestion is actually just present one huge 25TB LUN to zfs and let > the SAN handle redundancy.
Oh - No.... Definitely let zfs handle the redundancy. Because ZFS is doing the checksumming, if it finds a cksum error, it needs access to the redundant copy in order to correct it. If you let the SAN handle the redundancy, then zfs finds a cksum error, and your data is unrecoverable. (Just the file in question, not the whole pool or anything like that.) The answer to Morris's question, about size of LUNs and so forth... It really doesn't matter what size the LUNs are. Just choose based on your redundancy and performance requirements. Best would be to go JBOD, or if that's not possible, create a bunch of 1-disk volumes and let ZFS handle them as if they're JBOD. Performance is much better if you use mirrors instead of raid. (Sequential performance is just as good either way, but sequential IO is unusual for most use cases. Random IO is much better with mirrors, and that includes scrubs & resilvers.) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss