The only other zfs pool in my system is a mirrored rpool (2 500 gb disks). This
is for my own personal use, so it's not like the data is mission critical in
some sort of production environment.
The advantage I can see with going with raidz2 + spare over raidz3 and no spare
is I would spend much
On Jul 27, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Jack Kielsmeier wrote:
> The only other zfs pool in my system is a mirrored rpool (2 500 gb disks).
> This is for my own personal use, so it's not like the data is mission
> critical in some sort of production environment.
>
> The advantage I can see with going wit
> The performance will be similar, but in the non-degraded case, the
> raidz3
> will perform better for small, random reads.
Why is this? The two will have the same amount of data drives
Vennlige hilsener / Best regards
roy
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
(+47) 97542685
r...@karlsbakk.net
http://blo
On Jul 28, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>> The performance will be similar, but in the non-degraded case, the
>> raidz3
>> will perform better for small, random reads.
>
> Why is this? The two will have the same amount of data drives
The simple small, random read model for h
Thanks,
Looks like I'll be using raidz3.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
