On 05/25/2012 07:35 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > Sorry I can't comment on MPxIO, except that I thought zfs could by > itself discern two paths to the same drive, if only to protect > against double-importing the disk into pool.
Unfortunately, it isn't the same thing. MPxIO provides redundant signaling to the drives, independent of the storage/RAID layer above it, so it does have its place (besides simply increasing throughput). > I am not sure it is a good idea to use such low protection (raidz1) > with large drives. At least, I was led to believe that after 2Tb in > size raidz2 is preferable, and raidz3 is optimal due to long > scrub/resilver times leading to large timeframes that a pool with > an error is exposed to possible fatal errors (due to > double-failures with single-protection). I'd use lower protection if it were available :) The data on that array is not very important, the primary design parameter is low cost per MB. We're in a very demanding IO environment, we need large quantities of high-throughput, high-IOPS storage, but we don't need stellar reliability. If the pool gets corrupted due to unfortunate double-drive failure, well, that's tough, but not unbearable (the pool stores customer channel recordings for nPVR, so nothing critical really). -- Saso _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
