On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Martin Svensson wrote:
>
> Granted, the simple striped configuration is fast, and of course
> with no redundancy. But I don't understand how a mirrored
> configuration can perform as good when you sacrifice half of your
> disks for redundancy. Doesn't a mirror perform as one
On 11 August, 2008 - Martin Svensson sent me these 0,9K bytes:
> I read this (http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/when_to_and_not_to) blog
> regarding when and when not to use raidz. There is an example of a plain
> striped configuration and a mirror configuration. (See below)
>
> M refers to a 2-w
Diskspace may be lost on redundacy, but there's still two or more
devices in the mirror. Read requests can be spread across these.
--
Via iPhone 3G
On 11-août-08, at 11:07, Martin Svensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m> wrote:
> I read this (http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/when_to_and_not_to)
> blog
I read this (http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/when_to_and_not_to) blog regarding
when and when not to use raidz. There is an example of a plain striped
configuration and a mirror configuration. (See below)
M refers to a 2-way mirror and S to a simple dynamic stripe.
Config Blocks Available
On 10 August, 2008 - Martin Svensson sent me these 0,9K bytes:
> Hello! I'm new to ZFS and have some configuration questions.
>
> What's the difference, performance wise, in below configurations?
> * In the first configuration, can I loose 1 disk?
Yes.
> And, are the disks striped to gain perfo
Hello! I'm new to ZFS and have some configuration questions.
What's the difference, performance wise, in below configurations?
* In the first configuration, can I loose 1 disk? And, are the disks striped to
gain performance, as they act as one vdev?
* In the second configuration, can I loose 2 d
