On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Tristan Ball < tristan.b...@leica-microsystems.com> wrote:
> The remaining drive would only have been flagged as dodgy if the bad > sectors had been found, hence my comments (and general best practice) about > data scrub’s being necessary. While I agree it’s possibly likely that the > enterprise drive would flag errors earlier, I wouldn’t necessarily bet on > it. Just because a given sector has successfully been read a number of times > before doesn’t guarantee that it will be read successfully again, and again > the enterprise drive doesn’t try as hard. In the absence of scrubs, > resilvering can be the hardest thing the drive does, and by my experience is > likely to show up errors that haven’t occurred before. But you make a good > point about retrying the resilver until it works, presuming I don’t hit a > “too many errors, device faulted” condition. J > > > > I would have liked to go RaidZ2, but performance has dictated mirroring. > Physical, Financial and Capacity constraints have conspired together to > restrict me to 2 way mirroring rather than 3 way, which would have been my > next choice. J > > > > > > Regards > > Tristan > > > > (Who is now going to spend the afternoon figuring out how to win lottery by > osmosis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis :-) ) > My suggestion/question/whatever would be: why wouldn't raidz+an SSD arc not meet both financial and performance requirements? It would literally be a first for me. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
