> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Piscuc
>
> looks promising. One element that we cannot determine is the optimum
> number of disks in a raid-z pool. In the ZFS best practice guide, 7,9 and
11
There are several important
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Erik Trimble
>
> (1) Unless you are using Zvols for "raw" disk partitions (for use with
> something like a database), the recordsize value is a MAXIMUM value, NOT
> an absolute value. Thus, if
On 29 November 2010 15:03, Erik Trimble wrote:
> I'd have to re-look at the ZFS Best Practices Guide, but I'm pretty sure
> the recommendation of 7, 9, or 11 disks was for a raidz1, NOT a raidz2. Due
> to #5 above, best performance comes with an EVEN number of data disks in any
> raidZ, so a wri
Hi,
Thanks for the quick reply. Now that you have mentioned , we have a
different issue. What is the advantage of using spare disks instead of
including them in the raid-z array? If the system pool is on mirrored disks,
I think that this would be enough (hopefully). When one disk fails, isn't
it
On 11/28/2010 1:51 PM, Paul Piscuc wrote:
Hi,
We are a company that want to replace our current storage layout with
one that uses ZFS. We have been testing it for a month now, and
everything looks promising. One element that we cannot determine is
the optimum number of disks in a raid-z pool
Hi,
We are a company that want to replace our current storage layout with one
that uses ZFS. We have been testing it for a month now, and everything looks
promising. One element that we cannot determine is the optimum number of
disks in a raid-z pool. In the ZFS best practice guide, 7,9 and 11 di
