On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Peter Baumgartner wrote:
>>
> What is the risk of creating a pool consisting of two raidz vdevs that
> don't have the same number of disks?
Virtually no risk. The only matter of concern would be if the vdevs
have substantially different I/O performance and latencies since ZF
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Peter Baumgartner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> They do not have to have the same number of drivers, you can even mix
>> raidz and plain
>> disks. That is more a recommendation. Add -f to the command.
>>
> What is the risk of creating a pool consisting of two rai
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Peter Baumgartner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Mattias Pantzare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Peter Baumgartner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I have a 7x150GB drive (+1 spare) raidz pool that I need
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Mattias Pantzare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Peter Baumgartner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a 7x150GB drive (+1 spare) raidz pool that I need to expand.
>> There are 6 open drive bays, so I bought 6 300GB drives and went to
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Peter Baumgartner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a 7x150GB drive (+1 spare) raidz pool that I need to expand.
> There are 6 open drive bays, so I bought 6 300GB drives and went to
> add them as a raidz vdev to the existing zpool, but I didn't realize
> the raid
I have a 7x150GB drive (+1 spare) raidz pool that I need to expand.
There are 6 open drive bays, so I bought 6 300GB drives and went to
add them as a raidz vdev to the existing zpool, but I didn't realize
the raidz vdevs needed to have the same number of drives. (why is
that?)
My plan now is to, c
