On 6/20/07, mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/20/07, Paul Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would not risk raidz on that many disks. A nice compromise may be 14+2 > raidz2, which should perform nicely for your workload and be pretty reliable > when the disks start to fail. Would anyone on the list not recommend this setup? I could live with 2 drives being used for parity (or the "parity" concept)
Yes. 2 disks means when one fails, you've still got an extra. In raid 5 boxes, it's not uncommon with large arrays for one disk to die, and when it's replaced, the stress on the other disks causes another failure. Then the array is toast. I don't know if this is a problem on ZFS... but they took the time to implement raidz2, so I'd suggest it.
I would be able to reap the benefits of ZFS - self-healing, corrupted file reconstruction (since it has some parity to read from) and should have decent performance (obviously not smokin' since I am not configuring this to try for the fastest possible)
And since you'll generally be doing full-stripe reads and writes, you get good bandwidth anyways. Will _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
