> 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'
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
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, othe
> >> > 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
> 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
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 si
> >> >> 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.
> >>
>
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.
>>
>
> Exac
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
> >> 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 us
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
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
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
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 guar
>> 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
>
> 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
> 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 def
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 r
18 matches
Mail list logo
