Paul Hedderly wrote:
Strikes me that at the moment Sun/ZFS team is missing a great opportunity.
Imagine Joe bloggs has a historical machine with Just Any Old Bunch Of Discs...
(it's not me, no really).
He doesn't want to have to think too hard about pairing them up in mirrors or
in raids - an
Paul Hedderly wrote:
Now I can do that at the moment - well the copies/ditto kind anyway - but
if I lose or remove one of the discs, zfs will not start the zpool.
[i]That sucks!!![/i]
Agreed, that is a bug (perhaps related to 6540322).
--matt
___
zfs
On 6/14/07, Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What Joe really wants to say to ZFS is: "Here is a bunch of discs. Use them any way
you like - but I'm setting 'copies=2' or 'stripes=5' and 'parity=2' so you just go
allocating space on any of these discs trying to make sure I always have re
A bunch of disks of different sizes will make it a problem. I wanted to
post that idea to the mailing list before, but didn't do so, since it
doesn't make too much sense.
Say you have two disks, one 50GB and one 100GB, part of your data can
only be ditto'd within the upper 50GB of the larger disk.
Strikes me that at the moment Sun/ZFS team is missing a great opportunity.
Imagine Joe bloggs has a historical machine with Just Any Old Bunch Of Discs...
(it's not me, no really).
He doesn't want to have to think too hard about pairing them up in mirrors or
in raids - and sometimes they die or
