Yup, but the second set (stripe of 2 raidz1's) can achieve slightly better
performance, particularly on a system that has a lot of load. There's a number
of blog articles that discuss that in more detail than I care to get into here.
Of course, that's a bit of a moot point, as you're not going t
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> Well actually...
>
> raidz2:
> - 7x 1.5 tb = 10.5tb
> - 2 parity drives
>
> raidz1:
> - 3x 1.5 tb = 4.5 tb
> - 4x 1.5 tb = 6 tb , total 10.5tb
> - 2 parity drives in split thus different raidz1 arrays
>
> So really, in both cases 2 different
Well actually...
raidz2:
- 7x 1.5 tb = 10.5tb
- 2 parity drives
raidz1:
- 3x 1.5 tb = 4.5 tb
- 4x 1.5 tb = 6 tb , total 10.5tb
- 2 parity drives in split thus different raidz1 arrays
So really, in both cases 2 different parity drives and same storage...
---
Fleuriot Damien
On 5 Jan 2011, at 16
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:39:14 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:39:14 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:39:14 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:39:38 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:39:38 - /usr/bi
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:34:44 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:34:44 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:34:44 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:35:15 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-01-05 20:35:15 - /usr/bi
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 11:36:59AM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> Hi Clifton,
> I was getting very frustrated yesterday, hence the cripted message, your
> response requieres some background :-)
> the box is a Sun Fire X2200, which has bays for 2 disks, (we have several of
> these)
> before the lat
First off, raidz2 and raidz1 with copies=2 are not the same thing.
raidz2 will give you two copies of parity instead of just one. It also
guarantees that this parity is on different drives. You can sustain 2 drive
failures without data loss.
raidz1 with copies=2 will give you two copies of al
> Yes, to access the file volumes via any version of NFS, they need to
> be exported. (I don't think it would make sense to allow access to all
> of the server's data without limitations for NFSv4?)
>
> What is different (and makes it confusing for folks familiar with
> NFSv2,3)
> is the fact that
> Hi
>
> On 5 January 2011 12:09, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> > You can also do the following:
> > For /etc/exports
> > V4: /
> > /usr/home -maproot=root -network 192.168.183.0 -mask 255.255.255.0
> >
> > Then mount:
> > # mount_nfs -o nfsv4 192.168.183.131:/usr/home /marek_nfs4/
> > (But only if th
> Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> > ... one of the fundamental principals for NFSv2, 3 was a stateless
> > server ...
>
> Only as long as UDP transport was used. Any NFS implementation that
> used TCP for transport had thereby abandoned the stateless server
> principle, since a TCP connection itself req
> On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 5:55:53 am per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> > Rick Macklem wrote:
> >
> > > ... one of the fundamental principals for NFSv2, 3 was a stateless
> > > server ...
> >
> > Only as long as UDP transport was used. Any NFS implementation that
> > used TCP for transport had
> > You can also do the following:
> > For /etc/exports
> > V4: /
> > /usr/home -maproot=root -network 192.168.183.0 -mask 255.255.255.0
>
> Not in my configuration - '/' and '/usr' are different partitions
> (both UFS)
>
Hmm. Since entire volumes are exported for NFSv4, I can't remember if
expor
On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 5:55:53 am per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> > ... one of the fundamental principals for NFSv2, 3 was a stateless
> > server ...
>
> Only as long as UDP transport was used. Any NFS implementation that
> used TCP for transport had thereby aband
You can also do the following:
For /etc/exports
V4: /
/usr/home -maproot=root -network 192.168.183.0 -mask 255.255.255.0
Not in my configuration - '/' and '/usr' are different partitions (both UFS)
--
Marek Salwerowicz
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Rick Macklem wrote:
> ... one of the fundamental principals for NFSv2, 3 was a stateless
> server ...
Only as long as UDP transport was used. Any NFS implementation that
used TCP for transport had thereby abandoned the stateless server
principle, since a TCP connection itself requires that stat
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:21:31PM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have 2 ada disks striped:
> >
> > # gstripe list
> > Geom name: s1
> > State: UP
> > Status: Total=2, Online=2
> > Type: AUTOMATIC
> > Stripesize: 65536
> > ID: 2442772675
> > Providers:
> > 1. Name: stripe/s1
> >M
Hi again List,
I'm not so sure about using raidz2 anymore, I'm concerned for the performance.
Basically I have 9x 1.5T sata drives.
raidz2 and 2x raidz1 will provide the same capacity.
Are there any cons against using 2x raidz1 instead of 1x raidz2 ?
I plan on using a SSD drive for the OS, 40-
17 matches
Mail list logo
