John Kotches wrote: > Relling sez: > >> In general, I agree. However, the data does not >> necessarily support >> this as a solution and there is a point of >> diminishing return. >> > > I sent a reply via e-mail to Richard as well; I basically said something > along these lines... > > You missed my point though. It's nothing at all to do with the MTBF, and > everything to do with keeping the 48 drives for a series of symmetric arrays. > Never mind that you really don't need 1TB drives for the OS ;-) >
You missed my point. A CF for boot is a fairly good design, but it is questionable whether mirrored CFs is worth it. Set copies=2 and be happy. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
