On Sat, 9 Oct 2010, Richard Elling wrote:
On Oct 8, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Regardless, nothing beats raidz3 based on computable statistics.
Well, no, not really. It all depends on the number of sets and the MTTR.
Well, ok. I should have appended "except for 3-way mirrors
On Oct 8, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> Regardless, nothing beats raidz3 based on computable statistics.
Well, no, not really. It all depends on the number of sets and the MTTR.
Consider the case where you have 1 set of raidz3 and 2 sets of 3-way
mirrors. The raidz3 set can only sta
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
>
> In addition to this comes another aspect. What if one drive fails and
> you find bad data on another in the same VDEV while resilvering. This
> is quite common these da
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
In addition to this comes another aspect. What if one drive fails
and you find bad data on another in the same VDEV while resilvering.
This is quite common these days, and for mirrors, that will mean
data loss unless you mirror 3-way or more, whi
> Now, the above does not include things like proper statistics that the
> chances of that 2nd and 3rd disk failing (even correlations) may be
> higher than our 'flat-line' %/hr. based on 1-year MTBF, or stuff like
> if all the disks were purchased in the same lots and at the same time,
> so their
On Oct 8, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
> It also does not include the "human factor" which is still the most
> significant contributor to data loss. This is the most difficult factor to
> diminish. If the humans have difficulty understanding the system or the
> hardware, then t
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Michael DeMan wrote:
Now, the above does not include things like proper statistics that
the chances of that 2nd and 3rd disk failing (even correlations) may
be higher than our 'flat-line' %/hr. based on 1-year MTBF, or stuff
like if all the disks were purchased in the same
On Oct 8, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: Peter Jeremy [mailto:peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 10:02 PM
>>
>> On 2010-Oct-08 09:07:34 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey
>> wrote:
>>> If you're going raidz3, with 7 disks, then you might as well just
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
If you're going raidz3, with 7 disks, then you might as well just make
mirrors instead, and eliminate the slow resilver.
While the math supports using raidz3, practicality (other than storage
space) supports using mirrors. Mirrors are just much mo
> From: Peter Jeremy [mailto:peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 10:02 PM
>
> On 2010-Oct-08 09:07:34 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote:
> >If you're going raidz3, with 7 disks, then you might as well just make
> >mirrors instead, and eliminate the slow resilver.
>
On 2010-Oct-08 09:07:34 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>If you're going raidz3, with 7 disks, then you might as well just make
>mirrors instead, and eliminate the slow resilver.
There is a difference in reliability: raidzN means _any_ N disks can
fail, whereas mirror means one disk in each mirr
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ian Collins
>
> I would seriously consider raidz3, given I typically see 80-100 hour
> resilver times for 500G drives in raidz2 vdevs. If you haven't
> already,
If you're going raidz3, with 7
On 10/ 8/10 11:22 AM, Scott Meilicke wrote:
Those must be pretty busy drives. I had a recent failure of a 1.5T disks in a 7
disk raidz2 vdev that took about 16 hours to resliver. There was very little IO
on the array, and it had maybe 3.5T of data to resliver.
On Oct 7, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Ian C
Those must be pretty busy drives. I had a recent failure of a 1.5T disks in a 7
disk raidz2 vdev that took about 16 hours to resliver. There was very little IO
on the array, and it had maybe 3.5T of data to resliver.
On Oct 7, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> I would seriously consider r
On 10/ 8/10 11:06 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
- Original Message -
On 10/ 8/10 10:54 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Hi all
I'm setting up a couple of 110TB servers and I just want some
feedback in case I have forgotten something.
The servers (two of them) will, as of cu
- Original Message -
> On 10/ 8/10 10:54 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I'm setting up a couple of 110TB servers and I just want some
> > feedback in case I have forgotten something.
> >
> > The servers (two of them) will, as of current plans, be using 11
> > VDEVs with
On 10/ 8/10 10:54 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Hi all
I'm setting up a couple of 110TB servers and I just want some feedback in case
I have forgotten something.
The servers (two of them) will, as of current plans, be using 11 VDEVs with 7
2TB WD Blacks each, with a couple of Crucial RealSS
Hi all
I'm setting up a couple of 110TB servers and I just want some feedback in case
I have forgotten something.
The servers (two of them) will, as of current plans, be using 11 VDEVs with 7
2TB WD Blacks each, with a couple of Crucial RealSSD 256GB SSDs for the L2ARC
and another couple of 10
18 matches
Mail list logo
