On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:59:53PM +, A Darren Dunham wrote:
> It's not *bad*, but as far as I'm concerned, it's wasted space.
>
> You have to deal with the pool as a whole as having single-disk
> redundancy for failure modes. So the fact that one section of it has
> two-disk redundancy doesn
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:41:21AM -0500, Scott Gaspard wrote:
> I have a customer who has implemented the following layout: As you can
> see, he has mostly raidz zvols but has one raidz2 in the same zpool.
> What are the implications here? Is this a bad thing to do? Please
> elaborate.
It's
Hello Scott,
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 4:41:21 PM, you wrote:
SG> I have a customer who has implemented the following layout: As you can
SG> see, he has mostly raidz zvols but has one raidz2 in the same zpool.
SG> What are the implications here? Is this a bad thing to do? Please
SG> elabora
