> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Peter Tripp > here, I'll swap it in for the sparse file and let it resilver. > > Can someone with a stronger understanding of ZFS tell me why a degraded > RaidZ2 (minus one disk) is less efficient than RaidZ1? (Besides the > fact that your pools are always reported as degraded.) I guess the > same would apply with RaidZ2 vs RaidZ3 - 1disk.
If a raidz2 is degraded by one disk, then the remaining volume has equivalent redundancy to a healthy raidz1. This is true. However, the double parity calculation and/or storage could possibly perform slower than a healthy raidz1. I don't know if that's just an unfounded fear, or if perhaps there's some reality behind it. Good question. I don't know the answer. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
