Pedantic question, what would this gain us other than better data
retention?
Space and (especially?) performance would be worse with RAID-Z+1
than 2-way mirrors.
-- richard
Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 24, 2006 9:19:07 AM -0700 "Anton B. Rang"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our thinking is that if you want more redundancy than RAID-Z, you should
use RAID-Z with double parity, which provides more reliability and more
usable storage than a mirror of RAID-Zs would.
This is only true if the drives have either independent or identical
failure modes, I think. Consider two boxes, each containing ten drives.
Creating RAID-Z within each box protects against single-drive failures.
Mirroring the boxes together protects against single-box failures.
But mirroring also protects against single-drive failures.
-frank
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
