On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:31:41PM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote:
Okay, then if the person can stand to lose even more space, do zfs
mirroring on each JBOD. Then we'd have a mirror of mirrors instead of
a mirror of raidz's.
Remember, the OP wanted chassis-level redundancy as well as
Our thinking is that if you want more redundancy than RAID-Z, you should
use RAID-Z with double parity, which provides more reliability and more
usable storage than a mirror of RAID-Zs would.
This is only true if the drives have either independent or identical failure
modes, I think. Consider
On October 24, 2006 9:19:07 AM -0700 Anton B. Rang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Our thinking is that if you want more redundancy than RAID-Z, you should
use RAID-Z with double parity, which provides more reliability and more
usable storage than a mirror of RAID-Zs would.
This is only true if the
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 24, 2006 9:19:07 AM -0700 Anton B. Rang
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our thinking is that if you want more redundancy than RAID-Z, you
should
use RAID-Z with double parity, which provides more reliability
and more
usable storage
On October 24, 2006 2:26:49 PM -0400 Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the person is dealing with JBODS and not hardware RAID arrays, my
suggestion is to combine ZFS and SVM.
1) Use ZFS and make a raidz-based ZVOL of disks on each of the two JBODs
2) Use SVM to mirror the two ZVOLs.
Pedantic question, what would this gain us other than better data
retention?
Space and (especially?) performance would be worse with RAID-Z+1
than 2-way mirrors.
-- richard
Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 24, 2006 9:19:07 AM -0700 Anton B. Rang
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our thinking is that if
On Oct 24, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Pedantic question, what would this gain us other than better data
retention?
Space and (especially?) performance would be worse with RAID-Z+1
than 2-way mirrors.
You answered your own question, it would gain the user better data
there's 2 approaches:
1) RAID 1+Z where you mirror the individual drives across trays and
then RAID-Z the whole thing
2) RAID Z+1 where you RAIDZ each tray and then mirror them
I would argue that you can lose the most drives in configuration 1
and stay alive:
With a simple mirrored
On October 24, 2006 3:15:10 PM -0400 Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Pedantic question, what would this gain us other than better data
retention?
Space and (especially?) performance would be worse with RAID-Z+1
than 2-way mirrors.
On Oct 24, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/when_to_and_not_to says a raid-z
vdev has the read throughput of 1 drive for random reads. Compared
to #drives for a stripe. That's pretty significant.
Okay, then if the person can stand to lose even more
On October 24, 2006 3:31:41 PM -0400 Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/when_to_and_not_to says a raid-z
vdev has the read throughput of 1 drive for random reads. Compared
to #drives for a stripe. That's pretty
Frank Cusack wrote:
I don't think we know what the OP wanted. :-)
I understand the paranoia around overlapping raid levels - And yes they
are out to get you - but in the past some of the requirements were
around performance in a failure mode. Do we have any data concerning the
Don't know if you are running current OpenSolaris or can wait for Solaris 10
11/06 (should be released in November).
Either of those will contain raidz2 (which is like raid6 where you lose 2
disks).
For max space with some redundancy, I would make one raidz2 vdev of all 8
disks. You will get
13 matches
Mail list logo
