Hello Philip,
Thursday, June 29, 2006, 2:58:41 AM, you wrote:
PB> Erik Trimble wrote:
>>
>> Since the best way to get this is to use a Mirror or RAIDZ vdev, I'm
>> assuming that the proper way to get benefits from both ZFS and HW RAID
>> is the following:
>>
>> (1) ZFS mirror of HW stripes,
On Jun 28, 2006, at 18:25, Erik Trimble wrote:On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 14:55 -0700, Jeff Bonwick wrote: Which is better -zfs raidz on hardware mirrors, or zfs mirror on hardware raid-5? The latter. With a mirror of RAID-5 arrays, you get:(1) Self-healing data.(2) Tolerance of whole-array failure.(3)
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 14:55 -0700, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
> > Which is better -
> > zfs raidz on hardware mirrors, or zfs mirror on hardware raid-5?
>
> The latter. With a mirror of RAID-5 arrays, you get:
>
> (1) Self-healing data.
>
> (2) Tolerance of whole-array failure.
>
> (3) Tolerance of *
Hello Erik,
Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 6:32:38 PM, you wrote:
ET> Robert -
ET> I would definitely like to see the difference between read on HW RAID5
ET> vs read on RAIDZ. Naturally, one of the big concerns I would have is
ET> how much RAM is needed to avoid any cache starvation on the ZFS
ET
> Which is better -
> zfs raidz on hardware mirrors, or zfs mirror on hardware raid-5?
The latter. With a mirror of RAID-5 arrays, you get:
(1) Self-healing data.
(2) Tolerance of whole-array failure.
(3) Tolerance of *at least* three disk failures.
(4) More IOPs than raidz of hardware mirror
Robert,
> PT> You really need some level of redundancy if you're using HW raid.
> PT> Using plain stripes is downright dangerous. 0+1 vs 1+0 and all
> PT> that. Seems to me that the simplest way to go is to use zfs to mirror
> PT> HW raid5, preferably with the HW raid5 LUNs being completely
> PT>
Hello Peter,
Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 1:11:29 AM, you wrote:
PT> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 17:50, Erik Trimble wrote:
PT> You really need some level of redundancy if you're using HW raid.
PT> Using plain stripes is downright dangerous. 0+1 vs 1+0 and all
PT> that. Seems to me that the simplest way
Hello Erik,
Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 6:50:52 PM, you wrote:
ET> Personally, I can't think of a good reason to use ZFS with HW RAID5;
ET> case (3) above seems to me to provide better performance with roughly
ET> the same amount of redundancy (not quite true, but close).
I can see a reason.
In o
Hello David,
Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 12:30:54 AM, you wrote:
DV> If ZFS is providing better data integrity then the current storage
DV> arrays, that sounds like to me an opportunity for the next generation
DV> of intelligent arrays to become better.
Actually they can't.
If you want end-to-end
