David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
For a system where you care about capacity and safety, but not that
much about IO throughput (that's my interpretation of what you said
you would use it for), with 16 bays, I believe the expert opinion will
tell you that two RAIDZ2 groups of 8 disks each is one of the better
ways to go. With disks that big (you're talking 1.5TB and up), if one
disk fails, it takes a LONG time for the "resilver" operation to
complete, and during that time in a singly-redundant group you're now
vulnerable to a single failure (having already lost your redundancy).
AND the disks are being unusually stressed, precisely by the resilver
operation on top of normal uses. AND it's not nearly uncommon enough
for batches of disks to go out together all with the same flaw. So a
singly-redundant 8-drive group of large drives is thought to be very
risky by many people here; people prefer double redundancy in groups
that big with large drives.
Or even triple parity with 2TB drives, see
http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/acm_triple_parity_raid
--
Ian.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
