> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Peter Tripp
> here, I'll swap it in for the sparse file and let it resilver.
>
> Can someone with a stronger understanding of ZFS tell me why a degraded
> RaidZ2 (minus one disk) is less effici
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Peter Tripp wrote:
> Can someone with a stronger understanding of ZFS tell me why a degraded
> RaidZ2 (minus one disk) is less efficient than RaidZ1? (Besides the fact
> that your pools are always reported as degraded.) I guess the same would
> apply with RaidZ2
- "Peter Tripp" skrev:
> Can someone with a stronger understanding of ZFS tell me why a
> degraded RaidZ2 (minus one disk) is less efficient than RaidZ1?
> (Besides the fact that your pools are always reported as degraded.) I
> guess the same would apply with RaidZ2 vs RaidZ3 - 1disk.
A deg
Had an idea, could someone please tell me why it's wrong? (I feel like it has
to be).
A RaidZ-2 pool with one missing disk offers the same failure resilience as a
healthy RaidZ1 pool (no data loss when one disk fails). I had initially wanted
to do single parity raidz pool (5disk), but after a
