Hi,
> > In your case, there are two other aspects:
> > - if you pool small devices as JBODS below a vdev
> > member, no superordinate parity will help you when
> > you loose a member of the underlying JBOD. The
> whole
> > pool will just be broken, and you will loose a
> good
> > part of your data
Hi,
> > In your case, there are two other aspects:
> > - if you pool small devices as JBODS below a vdev
> > member, no superordinate parity will help you when
> > you loose a member of the underlying JBOD. The
> whole
> > pool will just be broken, and you will loose a
> good
> > part of your data
> Hi,
>
Hi tonmaus :) (btw, isn't that German for Audio Mouse?)
> the corners I am basing my previous idea on you can
> find here:
> http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Bes
> t_Practices_Guide#RAIDZ_Configuration_Requirements_and
> _Recommendations
Yep, me too :)
> I can confirm
Hi,
the corners I am basing my previous idea on you can find here:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#RAIDZ_Configuration_Requirements_and_Recommendations
I can confirm some of the recommendations already from personal practise. First
and foremost this sentenc
Hi tonmaus, thanks for your reply :)
I do know that this isn't best practice, and I've also considered the approach
you're hinting at of distributing each vdev over different disks. However, this
yields a massive loss in capacity if I want double-parity RAIDZ2 (which I do ;)
), and I'll be unab
Hi,
following the zfs best practise guide, my understanding is that neither choice
is very good. There is maybe a third choice, that is
pool
--vdev1
--disk
--disk
.
--disk
...
--vdev n
--disk
--disk
.
--
Hi all :)
I've been wanting to make the switch from XFS over RAID5 to ZFS/RAIDZ2 for some
time now, ever since I read about ZFS the first time. Absolutely amazing beast!
I've built my own little hobby server at home and have a boatload of disks in
different sizes that I've been using together t
