On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> I really want to see your face when you fsck 48TB w/o ffs+j (since that is >> so young must be immature :S ) of data with the phone ring non stop with >> > > Even if ZFS would be the only filesystem in existence i would make one per > 2 disks (single mirror). > > No matter what's going on, what do you prefer in case say - double disk > failure from one mirror on 48 disk systems? > > losing completely data of 1/24 of users (and then restoring that amount > from backups), or losing randomly chosen 1/24 of files from whole system? > > answer yourself. > Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not mirror 24vs24. I will perform very well but there is too much risk in that. you would rather go with a raidz2 stripe sets. > > With UFS of course i would have single disk fsck time - less than a hour. > which CAN be done out of work hours with soft updates. > > i normally turn off automatic fsck for large data filesystems, and if > crash happened i run it after/before work hours. > > > raid is not a backup. You can loose data with any configuration or fs. so like in the compiler discussion. There is no perfect something in this world. It's always a tradeoff. with ZFS you have access to most advanced techniques and I believe that data is most safe with raidz3 as it can be. UFS cant match that and you have to rely on a raidcontroller which can screw up your data as well. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
