Hello Tom, Tuesday, May 23, 2006, 9:46:24 PM, you wrote:
TG> Hi, TG> I have these two pools, four luns each. One has two mirrors x two luns, TG> the other is one mirror x 4 luns. TG> I am trying to figure out what the pro's and cons are of these two configs. TG> One thing I have noticed is that the single mirror 4 lun config can TG> survive as many as three lun failures. The other config only two. TG> I am thinking that space efficiency is similar because zfs strips across TG> all the luns in both configs. TG> So that being said. I would like to here from others on pro's and cons TG> of these two approaches. TG> Thanks ahead, TG> -tomg TG> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM TG> mypool ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> /export/lun5 ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> /export/lun2 ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> /export/lun3 ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> /export/lun4 ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM TG> newpool ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> /export/luna ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> /export/lunb ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> /export/lund ONLINE 0 0 0 TG> /export/lunc ONLINE 0 0 0 In the first config you should get a pool storage with capacity equal to '2x lun size'. In the second config only '1x lun size'. So in the second config you get better redundancy but only half storage size. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
