Re: [zfs-discuss] Default zpool on Thumpers

2006-11-03 Thread Torrey McMahon
Richard Elling - PAE wrote: Robert Milkowski wrote: I almost completely agree with your points 1-5, except that I think that having at least one hot spare by default would be better than having none at all - especially with SATA drives. Yes, I pushed for it, but didn't win. In a perfect wor

Re: [zfs-discuss] Default zpool on Thumpers

2006-11-02 Thread Richard Elling - PAE
Robert Milkowski wrote: REP> P.S. did you upgrade the OS? I'd consider the need for 'zpool upgrade' to be REP> a bug. on one thumper I reinstalled OS to S10U3 beta and imported default pool. On another I put snv_49 and imported pool. Then I destroyed pools and I'm experimenting with different

Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Default zpool on Thumpers

2006-11-02 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello Richard, Thursday, November 2, 2006, 7:08:17 PM, you wrote: REP> Robert Milkowski wrote: >> Thumpers come with Solaris pre-installed and already configured one pool. >> It's a collection of raid-z1 groups but some groups are smaller than the >> others. >> I'll reconfigure it anyway but

Re: [zfs-discuss] Default zpool on Thumpers

2006-11-02 Thread Richard Elling - PAE
Robert Milkowski wrote: Thumpers come with Solaris pre-installed and already configured one pool. It's a collection of raid-z1 groups but some groups are smaller than the others. I'll reconfigure it anyway but I'm just curious what side-effects can there be with such a config? Any performanc

[zfs-discuss] Default zpool on Thumpers

2006-11-02 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hi. Thumpers come with Solaris pre-installed and already configured one pool. It's a collection of raid-z1 groups but some groups are smaller than the others. I'll reconfigure it anyway but I'm just curious what side-effects can there be with such a config? Any performance hit? All space will