On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> Once again I question why you're wasting your time with raid-z. You might >> as well just stripe across all the drives. You're taking a performance >> penalty for a setup that essentially has 0 redundancy. You lose a 500gb >> drive, you lose everything. >> > > Why do you say that this user will lose everything? The two > concatenated/striped devices on the local system are no different than if > they were concatenated on SAN array and made available as one LUN. If one of > those two drives fails, then it would have the same effect as if one larger > drive failed. > > Bob > > Can I blame it on too many beers? I was thinking losing half of one drive, rather than an entire vdev would just cause "weirdness" in the pool, rather than a clean failure. I suppose without experimentation there's no way to really no, in theory though, zfs should be able to handle it. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
