On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Harold <thomas-li...@nybeta.com> wrote: > On 1/7/2010 10:54 AM, John Doe wrote: >> From: Karanbir Singh<mail-li...@karan.org> >>> On 01/07/2010 02:30 PM, Boris Epstein wrote: >>>> KB, thanks. When you say "dont go over 1 TiB in storage per spindle" >>>> what are you referring to as spindle? >>> >>> disk. it boils down to how much data do you want to put under one >>> read/write stream. >>> >>> the other thing is that these days 1.5TB disks are the best >>> bang-for-the-buck in terms of storage/cost. So maybe thats something to >>> consider, and limit disk usage down initially - expand later as you need. >>> >>> Even better if your hba can support that, if not then mdadm ( have lots >>> of cpu right ? ), and make sure you understand recarving / reshaping >>> before you do the final design. Refactoring filers with large quantities >>> of data is no fun if you cant reshape and grow. >> >> I also heard that disks above 1TB might have reliability issues. >> Maybe it changed since then... >> > > I remember rumors about the early 2TB Seagates. > > Personally, I won't RAID SATA drives over 500GB unless they're > enterprise-level ones with the limits on how long before the drive > reports a problem back to the host when it has a read error.
I'm with you on that one. We currently use RAIDZ2 to allow us to lose 2 drives in our storage pools, and will definitely move to RAIDZ3 at some point down the road. Luckily for us ZFS re-silvers just the blocks that contain data / parity when a failure occurs, so a disk failure is usually remedied in an hour or two (we devote two disks as spares). - Ryan -- http://prefetch.net _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
