Thank you to all who responded. This response in particular was very helpful
and I think I will stick with my current zpool configuration (choice "a" if
you're reading below). I primarily host VMware virtual machines over NFS from
this server's predecessor and this server will be doing the same
On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Richard Elling
> wrote:
> For those disinclined to click, data retention when mirroring wins over raidz
> when looking at the problem from the perspective of number of drives
> available. Why? Because 5+1 raidz
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> For those disinclined to click, data retention when mirroring wins over
> raidz
> when looking at the problem from the perspective of number of drives
> available. Why? Because 5+1 raidz survives the loss of any disk, but 3
> sets
> of 2-wa
On Mar 19, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Chris Dunbar - Earthside, LLC wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After being immersed in this list and other ZFS sites for the past few weeks
> I am having some doubts about the zpool layout on my new server. It's not too
> late to make a change so I thought I would ask for commen
12 disks in mirrored pairs is a small configuration. The "smaller" sets
you referrer to might be the number of disks in a raidz/raidz2/raidz3
top level vdev.
You say performance is one of your top priorities but what is the
workload ? Mostly read ? Mostly write ? Random ? Sequential ?
Se
Chris Dunbar - Earthside, LLC wrote:
Hello,
After being immersed in this list and other ZFS sites for the past few weeks I am having
some doubts about the zpool layout on my new server. It's not too late to make a change
so I thought I would ask for comments. My current plan to to have 12 x 1.
Brandon High wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Chris Dunbar - Earthside, LLC
mailto:cdun...@earthside.net>> wrote:
if I went with two? Finally, would I be better off with raidz2 or
something else instead of the striped mirrored sets? Performance
and fault tolerance are my high
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Chris Dunbar - Earthside, LLC <
cdun...@earthside.net> wrote:
> if I went with two? Finally, would I be better off with raidz2 or something
> else instead of the striped mirrored sets? Performance and fault tolerance
> are my highest priorities.
>
Performance and
You will get much better random IO with mirrors, and better reliability when a
disk fails with raidz2. Six sets of mirrors are fine for a pool. From what I
have read, a hot spare can be shared across pools. I think the correct term
would be "load balanced mirrors", vs RAID 10.
What kind of perf
Hello,
After being immersed in this list and other ZFS sites for the past few weeks I
am having some doubts about the zpool layout on my new server. It's not too
late to make a change so I thought I would ask for comments. My current plan to
to have 12 x 1.5 TB disks in a what I would normally
10 matches
Mail list logo