Re: [zfs-discuss] ? SX:CE snv_91 - ZFS - raid and mirror - drive sizes don't add correc

2008-07-06 Thread Johan Hartzenberg
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For your second one I'm less sure what's going on: > # zpool create temparray raidz c1t2d0 c1t4d0 raidz c1t3d0 c1t5d0 raidz > c1t6d0 c1t8d0 > > This creates three two disk raid-z sets and stripes the data across them. > The probl

Re: [zfs-discuss] ? SX:CE snv_91 - ZFS - raid and mirror - drive sizes don't add correc

2008-07-06 Thread Ross
I'm no expert in ZFS, but I think I can explain what you've created there: # zpool create temparray1 mirror c1t2d0 c1t4d0 mirror c1t3d0 c1t5d0 mirror c1t6d0 c1t8d0 This creates a stripe of three mirror sets (or in old fashioned terms, you have a raid-0 stripe made up of three raid-1 sets of two

Re: [zfs-discuss] ? SX:CE snv_91 - ZFS - raid and mirror - drive sizes don't add correc

2008-07-06 Thread Peter Tribble
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Rob Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a way to get mirror performance (double speed) with raid integrity > (one drive can fail and you are OK)? I can't imagine that there exists no one > who would want that configuration. That's what mirroring does - y

Re: [zfs-discuss] ? SX:CE snv_91 - ZFS - raid and mirror - drive sizes don't add correc

2008-07-06 Thread Rob Clark
> Peter Tribble wrote: > Because what you've created is a pool containing two > components: > - a 3-drive raidz > - a 3-drive mirror > concatenated together. > OK. Seems odd that ZFS would allow that (would people want that configuration instead of what I am attempting to do). > I think that w