On 2013-03-06 13:21, Jim Klimov wrote:
https://blogs.oracle.com/ahl/entry/triple_parity_raid_z
And the resulting scientific article:
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1670144
Did you think and consider the trade-offs like these? If yes, what
was your educated conclusion and why?
//Jim
__
On 2013-03-04 20:54, Jan Owoc wrote:
For the 4 TB disks there is only 1 12 disk vdev so 10 data disks, 2 parity
disks, not 4.
Your zpool status showed 2x 6-disk vdevs...
This brings up an interesting question to contemplate: with the same
capacity but doubled performance one can make 2x6-disk
Hi Len,
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Len Zaifman wrote:
> RE: Jan's response:
If you did your reply inline vs top-posting, it would be clear that
you are responding to me. :-)
> For the 2 TB disks there are 2 11 disk vdevs , so 18 data disks , 4 parity
> disks
> For the 4 TB disks there
p14TB36T 70K 36T 1% /ccmbkup14TB
Sorry for wasting the bandwidth.
[OpenIndiana-discuss] Puzzling behaviour in zpools
Jan Owoc jsowoc at gmail.com
Mon Mar 4 19:22:12 UTC 2013
Previous message: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Puzzling behaviour in zpools
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ t
Hi Len,
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Len Zaifman wrote:
> I have a system which I am configuring for maximum space to use as a low cost
> backup service. It has an Areca raid card , 24 2 TB drives (Format reports
> 1.82 TB) and 12 4 TB drives (format reports 3.64 TB).
Yes, that is to be e
I have a system which I am configuring for maximum space to use as a low cost
backup service. It has an Areca raid card , 24 2 TB drives (Format reports 1.82
TB) and 12 4 TB drives (format reports 3.64 TB).
using 2 2 TB drives for a mirrored rpool, I create a 2 TB pool as 2 x 11 disk
raidz2 v
