opensolaris-zfs-disc...@mlists.thewrittenword.com said:
> Is it really pointless? Maybe they want the insurance RAIDZ2 provides. Given
> the choice between insurance and performance, I'll take insurance, though it
> depends on your use case. We're using 5-disk RAIDZ2 vdevs.
> . . .
> Would love to
On 10/24/09 12:31 PM, Jim Mauro wrote:
Posting to zfs-discuss. There's no reason this needs to be
kept confidential.
okay.
5-disk RAIDZ2 - doesn't that equate to only 3 data disks?
Seems pointless - they'd be much better off using mirrors,
which is a better choice for random IO...
Hmm, they
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Albert Chin wrote:
5-disk RAIDZ2 - doesn't that equate to only 3 data disks?
Seems pointless - they'd be much better off using mirrors,
which is a better choice for random IO...
Is it really pointless? Maybe they want the insurance RAIDZ2
provides. Given the choice betwee
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 03:31:25PM -0400, Jim Mauro wrote:
> Posting to zfs-discuss. There's no reason this needs to be
> kept confidential.
>
> 5-disk RAIDZ2 - doesn't that equate to only 3 data disks?
> Seems pointless - they'd be much better off using mirrors,
> which is a better choice for rand
Posting to zfs-discuss. There's no reason this needs to be
kept confidential.
5-disk RAIDZ2 - doesn't that equate to only 3 data disks?
Seems pointless - they'd be much better off using mirrors,
which is a better choice for random IO...
Looking at this now...
/jim
Jeff Savit wrote:
Hi all,
