On Aug 3, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Timothy Coalson <tsc...@mst.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> "dormitionsk...@hotmail.com" <dormitionsk...@hotmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Aug 2, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: >>> >>>> Looking for a little advice about setting up a home lan server. >>>> >>>> So far just tinkering with a vbox oi as guest install hoping to make >>>> whatever nasty blunders on disposable data and OS. >>>> >>>> But getting right to it: >>>> >>>> In a previous life I ran oi and used mirrored sets of discs for >>>> everthing. >>>> >>>> Mirrored OS discs, and 2 sets of mirrored data discs. >>>> >>>> I was advised back then that mirrored sets of discs, given my small >>>> usage, would be the most secure (not meaning agains penitration or the >>>> like...just keeping data from loss) and handiest way to handle my home >>>> lan. >>>> >>>> So, wondering what the current thinking is? Like say, mirrored as >>>> opposed to a collection of discs in raidz or whatever its called. >>>> >>>> My needs will be well handled by something like 3tb of storage so >>>> something like 6 1tb discs for a mirrored setup. >>>> >>>> What else could I get with those 6 disks in terms of redundancy and ease >>>> of maintenance? >> >> They're a little weak in the snapshot area, and throw big sighs when >> asked to scrub a disk.... hehe. >> >> My question here was about the various ways of using a zfs box. >> > > Richard Elling did some comparisons of vdev layouts, calculating mean time > to data loss:
Yes, on my todo list is to update with more modern data. Look for something soon :-) -- richard > > http://blog.richardelling.com/2010/02/zfs-data-protection-comparison.html > > https://blogs.oracle.com/relling/entry/a_story_of_two_mttdl > https://blogs.oracle.com/relling/entry/raid_recommendations_space_vs_mttdl > > The pictures on the oracle blogs got botched, though they can be dug out > (they reference the old sun url, but they did get moved to the new url). > The short version is that while mirror pairs are safer than raidz1 for the > same number of disks, raidz2 is safer than either (and more space efficient > to boot - what you lose is some performance in random workloads). > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss -- ZFS storage and performance consulting at http://www.RichardElling.com _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
