On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 09:32 +0100, krad wrote: > Zfs has been designed for highly scalable redundant disk pools therefore > using it on a single drive kind of goes against it ethos. Remember a lot of > the blurb in the man page was written by sun and therefore is written with > corporates in mind, therefore the cost with of the data vs an extra drive > being so large why wouldn't you make it redundant. > > Having said that sata drives are cheap these days so you would have to be on > the tightest of budgets not to do a mirror. > > Having said all this we quite often us zfs on a single drive, well sort of. > The sun clusters have external storage for the shared file systems. These > are usually a bunch of drives, raid 5, 10 or whatever. Then export a single > lun, which is presented to the various nodes. There is a zpool created on > this LUN. So to all intents and purposes zfs thinks its on a single drive > (the redundancy provided by the external array). This is common practice and > we see no issues with it.
By doing this surely you lose a lot of the self healing that ZFS offers? For instance, if the underlying vdev is just a raid5, then a disk failure combined with an undetected checksum error on a different disk would lead you to lose all your data. Or am I missing something? (PS, top posting is bad) Tom _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
