On Feb 14, 2011 6:56 AM, "Paul Kraus" wrote:
> P.S. I am measuring number of objects via `zdb -d` as that is faster
> than trying to count files and directories and I expect is a much
> better measure of what the underlying zfs code is dealing with (a
> particular dataset may have lots of snapshot
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
>> On 2011-Feb-07 14:22:51 +0800, Matthew Angelo wrote:
>>> I'm actually more leaning towards running a simple 7+1 RAIDZ1.
>>> Running this with 1TB is not a problem but I just wanted to
>>>
On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Feb-07 14:22:51 +0800, Matthew Angelo wrote:
>> I'm actually more leaning towards running a simple 7+1 RAIDZ1.
>> Running this with 1TB is not a problem but I just wanted to
>> investigate at what TB size the "scales would tip".
>
> It's
On 2011-Feb-07 14:22:51 +0800, Matthew Angelo wrote:
>I'm actually more leaning towards running a simple 7+1 RAIDZ1.
>Running this with 1TB is not a problem but I just wanted to
>investigate at what TB size the "scales would tip".
It's not that simple. Whilst resilver time is proportional to dev
I think as far as data integrity and complete volume loss is most likely
in the following order:
1. 1x Raidz(7+1)
2. 2x RaidZ(3+1)
3. 1x Raidz2(6+2)
Simple raidz certainly is an option with only 8 disks (8 is about the
maximum I would go) but to be honest I would feel safer going raidz2.
The
On Feb 6, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Matthew Angelo wrote:
> I require a new high capacity 8 disk zpool. The disks I will be
> purchasing (Samsung or Hitachi) have an Error Rate (non-recoverable,
> bits read) of 1 in 10^14 and will be 2TB. I'm staying clear of WD
> because they have the new 2048b sectors
Yes I did mean 6+2, Thank you for fixing the typo.
I'm actually more leaning towards running a simple 7+1 RAIDZ1.
Running this with 1TB is not a problem but I just wanted to
investigate at what TB size the "scales would tip". I understand
RAIDZ2 protects against failures during a rebuild process
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Angelo
>
> My question is, how do I determine which of the following zpool and
> vdev configuration I should run to maximize space whilst mitigating
> rebuild failure risk?
>
> 1. 2x R
On 02/ 7/11 03:45 PM, Matthew Angelo wrote:
I require a new high capacity 8 disk zpool. The disks I will be
purchasing (Samsung or Hitachi) have an Error Rate (non-recoverable,
bits read) of 1 in 10^14 and will be 2TB. I'm staying clear of WD
because they have the new 2048b sectors which don't
I require a new high capacity 8 disk zpool. The disks I will be
purchasing (Samsung or Hitachi) have an Error Rate (non-recoverable,
bits read) of 1 in 10^14 and will be 2TB. I'm staying clear of WD
because they have the new 2048b sectors which don't play nice with ZFS
at the moment.
My question
10 matches
Mail list logo
