Very cool! Just one comment. You said:
> We'll try compression level #9.
gzip-9 is *really* CPU-intensive, often for little gain over gzip-1.
As in, it can take 100 times longer and yield just a few percent gain.
The CPU cost will limit write bandwidth to a few MB/sec per core.
I'd suggest tha
Leal,
The entire configuration through our corporation is being defined. One of our
team members is heavy into EMC - 200Tb is his "normal" operating range.
However, for this need we are focused just on local "smart appliances" the
purpose of which is to do more than just automatically mirror t
Hello...
If i have understood well, you will have a host with EMC RAID5 discs. Is that
right?
You pay a lot of money to have EMC discs, and i think is not a good idea have
another layer of *any* RAID on top of it. If you have EMC RAID5 (eg.
symmetrix), you don't need to have a software RAID...
"The important thing is to protect your data. You have lots of options here,
so we'd need to know more precisely what the other requirements are before
we could give better advice.
-- richard"
Please let me come in with a parallel need, the answer to which should
contribute to this thread.
-Phys
Hello Kory,
Monday, March 19, 2007, 4:47:27 PM, you wrote:
KW> Using raidz in zfs or raidz2 do all the disks have to be the same size.
No, they don't have to be the same size.
However all disks will be reduced to common size and once you
replace (online) all disks to bigger one the pool size wi
Hi Kory,
No, they don't have to the same size. But, the pool size will be
constrained by the smallest disk and might not be the best
use of your disk space.
See the output below. I'd be better off mirroring the two 136-GB
disks and using the 4 GB-disk for something else. :-)
Cindy
c0t0d0 = 4
