You both make good points, thanks for the feedback :) I am more concerned about data protection than performance, so I suppose raidz2 is the best choice I have with such a small scale setup.
Now the question that remains is wether or not to use parts of the OS's ssd for zil, cache, or both ? --- Fleuriot Damien On 5 Jan 2011, at 23:12, Artem Belevich <fbsdl...@src.cx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Damien Fleuriot <m...@my.gd> wrote: >> Well actually... >> >> raidz2: >> - 7x 1.5 tb = 10.5tb >> - 2 parity drives >> >> raidz1: >> - 3x 1.5 tb = 4.5 tb >> - 4x 1.5 tb = 6 tb , total 10.5tb >> - 2 parity drives in split thus different raidz1 arrays >> >> So really, in both cases 2 different parity drives and same storage... > > In second case you get better performance, but lose some data > protection. It's still raidz1 and you can't guarantee functionality in > all cases of two drives failing. If two drives fail in the same vdev, > your entire pool will be gone. Granted, it's better than single-vdev > raidz1, but it's *not* as good as raidz2. > > --Artem _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
