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 *at least* three disk failures. > > (4) More IOPs than raidz of hardware mirrors (see Roch's blog entry). > > (5) More convenient FRUs (the whole array becomes a FRU). > > Jeff >
Not that I disagree with the inital assessment, but a couple of corrections: (1) Both give you this. (2) ZFS RAIDZ on HW mirrors can also survive a complete HW mirror array failure. (3) Both configs can survive AT LEAST 3 drive failures. RAIDZ of HW mirrors is slightly better at being able to survive 4+ drive failures, statistically speaking. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca14-102 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
