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
