On August 10, 2007 2:20:30 PM +0300 Tuomas Leikola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We call that a mirror :-)
Mirror and raidz suffer from the classic blockdevice abstraction
problem in that they need disks of equal size.
Not that I'm aware of. Mirror and raid-z will simply use the smallest
We call that a mirror :-)
Mirror and raidz suffer from the classic blockdevice abstraction
problem in that they need disks of equal size.
Not that I'm aware of. Mirror and raid-z will simply use the smallest
size of your available disks.
Exactly. The rest is not usable.
On 8/10/07, Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, it might be nice to create a mirror with a 100G disk and
two 50G disks. Right now someone has to create slices on the big disk
manually and feed them to zpool. Letting ZFS handle everything itself
might be a win for some cases.
On 8/10/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tuomas Leikola wrote:
We call that a mirror :-)
Mirror and raidz suffer from the classic blockdevice abstraction
problem in that they need disks of equal size.
Not that I'm aware of. Mirror and raid-z will simply use the smallest
On 8/10/07, Moore, Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wishlist: It would be nice to put the whole redundancy definitions into
the zfs filesystem layer (rather than the pool layer): Imagine being
able to set copies=5+2 for a filesystem... (requires a 7-VDEV pool,
and stripes via RAIDz2, otherwise
We call that a mirror :-)
Mirror and raidz suffer from the classic blockdevice abstraction
problem in that they need disks of equal size.
Not that I'm aware of. Mirror and raid-z will simply use the smallest
size of your available disks.
Exactly. The rest is not usable.
Tuomas Leikola wrote:
We call that a mirror :-)
Mirror and raidz suffer from the classic blockdevice abstraction
problem in that they need disks of equal size.
Not that I'm aware of. Mirror and raid-z will simply use the smallest
size of your available disks.
Exactly. The rest is not
On 8/9/07, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm looking for is a disk full error if ditto cannot be written
to different disks. This would guarantee that a mirror is written on a
separate disk - and the entire filesystem can be salvaged from a full
disk failure.
We call that
On 8/9/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're that bent on having maximum redundancy, I think you should
consider implementing real redundancy. I'm also biting the bullet and
going mirrors (cheaper than RAID-Z for home, less disks needed to start
with).
Currently I am, and as
On August 10, 2007 12:34:23 PM +0300 Tuomas Leikola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/9/07, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm looking for is a disk full error if ditto cannot be written
to different disks. This would guarantee that a mirror is written on a
separate disk - and
This is practically the holy grail of dynamic raid - the ability to
dynamically use different redundancy settings on a per-directory
level, and to use a mix of different sized devices and add/remove them
at will.
Well I suspect that arbitrary redundancy configuration is not
something we'll
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:26 AM
To: Tuomas Leikola
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Force ditto block on different vdev?
On August 10, 2007 2:20:30 PM +0300 Tuomas Leikola
[EMAIL
Mirror and raidz suffer from the classic blockdevice abstraction
problem in that they need disks of equal size.
Not that I'm aware of. Mirror and raid-z will simply use the smallest
size of your available disks.
Exactly. The rest is not usable.
Well I don't understand how you
Hi!
I'm having hard time finding out if it's possible to force ditto
blocks on different devices.
This mode has many benefits, the least not being that is practically
creates a fully dynamic mode of mirroring (replacing raid1 and raid10
variants), especially when combined with the upcoming vdev
This mode has many benefits, the least not being that is practically
creates a fully dynamic mode of mirroring (replacing raid1 and raid10
variants), especially when combined with the upcoming vdev remove and
defrag/rebalance features.
Vdev remove, that's a sure thing. I've heard about defrag
Actually, ZFS is already supposed to try to write the ditto copies of a
block on different vdevs if multiple are available.
*TRY* being the keyword here.
What I'm looking for is a disk full error if ditto cannot be written
to different disks. This would guarantee that a mirror is written on
Actually, ZFS is already supposed to try to write the ditto copies of a
block on different vdevs if multiple are available.
*TRY* being the keyword here.
What I'm looking for is a disk full error if ditto cannot be written
to different disks. This would guarantee that a mirror is written
Tuomas Leikola wrote:
Actually, ZFS is already supposed to try to write the ditto copies of a
block on different vdevs if multiple are available.
*TRY* being the keyword here.
What I'm looking for is a disk full error if ditto cannot be written
to different disks. This would guarantee
18 matches
Mail list logo
