Richard Elling wrote:
> Haudy Kazemi wrote:
>> How would one calculate system reliability estimates here? One is a
>> RAIDZ set of 6 disks, the other a set of 8. The reliability of each
>> RAIDZ set by itself isn't too hard to calculate, but put together,
>> especially since they're different si
Haudy Kazemi wrote:
> How would one calculate system reliability estimates here? One is a
> RAIDZ set of 6 disks, the other a set of 8. The reliability of each
> RAIDZ set by itself isn't too hard to calculate, but put together,
> especially since they're different sizes, I don't know.
We just
How would one calculate system reliability estimates here? One is a RAIDZ
set of 6 disks, the other a set of 8. The reliability of each RAIDZ set by
itself isn't too hard to calculate, but put together, especially since
they're different sizes, I don't know.
On Jul 19 2007, Richard Elling wrote
Matt,
Thank you for your reply. I like to keep the raidz groups with the same
number of disks but it is not always that easily to have the numbers
work out way.
David
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 14:49 -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> David Smith wrote:
> > What are your thoughts or recommendations on
David Smith wrote:
> What are your thoughts or recommendations on having a zpool made up of
> raidz groups of different sizes? Are there going to be performance issues?
It should be fine. Under some circumstances the performance could be similar
to a pool with all raidz groups of the smallest s
After a cup of French coffee, I feel strong enough to recommend :-)
David Smith wrote:
> What are your thoughts or recommendations on having a zpool made up of
> raidz groups of different sizes? Are there going to be performance issues?
It is more complicated and, in general, more complicated is
