On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> >> answer yourself. >> >> >> Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not >> mirror 24vs24. >> > > if i wasn't clear enough then i would it like that (with UFS), and > assuming disks are named disk0....disk48, and that i have at least one more > disk for system code, often acessed data etc (SSD would be fine), while > these 48 disks store user/whatever data. > > gmirror label ...options... mirror1 /dev/disk0 /dev/disk1 > gmirror label ...options... mirror2 /dev/disk2 /dev/disk3 > . > . > . > gmirror label ...options... mirror24 /dev/disk46 /dev/disk47 > > then newfs etc.. and mounted as 24 filesystems. eg. /home1.../home24 > > then decide how to spread things properly. this depend of your needs. > > interesting idea but the options ZFS would give you are superior to this setup. But I have still not seen any evidence/facts that ZFS looses more data than UFS. Excluding user error which is 90% the reason data is lost. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
