Hugo Mills posted on Sun, 04 May 2014 19:31:55 +0100 as excerpted:
My proposal was simply a description mechanism, not an
implementation. The description is N-copies, M-device-stripe,
P-parity-devices (NcMsPp), and (more or less comfortably) covers at
minimum all of the current and
N-copies, M-device-stripe, P-parity-devices (NcMsPp)
At expense of being the terminology nut, who doesn't even like SNIA's chosen
terminology because it's confusing, I suggest a concerted effort to either use
SNIA's terms anyway, or push back and ask them to make changes before
propagating
On 2014/05/04 05:27 AM, Duncan wrote:
Russell Coker posted on Sun, 04 May 2014 12:16:54 +1000 as excerpted:
Are there any plans for a feature like the ZFS copies= option?
I'd like to be able to set copies= separately for data and metadata. In
most cases RAID-1 provides adequate data
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 11:12:38AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2014 09:27:10 +0200
Brendan Hide bren...@swiftspirit.co.za wrote:
On 2014/05/04 05:27 AM, Duncan wrote:
Russell Coker posted on Sun, 04 May 2014 12:16:54 +1000 as
excerpted:
Are there any plans for a feature
On Sun, 04 May 2014 09:27:10 +0200
Brendan Hide bren...@swiftspirit.co.za wrote:
On 2014/05/04 05:27 AM, Duncan wrote:
Russell Coker posted on Sun, 04 May 2014 12:16:54 +1000 as
excerpted:
Are there any plans for a feature like the ZFS copies= option?
I'd like to be able to set
Russell Coker posted on Sun, 04 May 2014 12:16:54 +1000 as excerpted:
Are there any plans for a feature like the ZFS copies= option?
I'd like to be able to set copies= separately for data and metadata. In
most cases RAID-1 provides adequate data protection but I'd like to have
RAID-1 and
