David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Adam Leventhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm not sure I even agree with the notion that this is a real >> problem (and if it is, I don't think is easily solved). Stripe >> widths are a function of the expected failure rate and fault domains >> of the system which tend to be static in nature. A coarser solution >> would be to create a new pool where you zfs send/zfs recv the >> filesystems of the old pool. > > RAIDZ expansion is a big enough deal that I may end up buying an > Infrant NAS box and using their X-RAID instead. The ZFS should be > more secure, and I *really* like the block checksumming -- but the > ability to expand my existing pool by just adding a new disk is REALLY > REALLY USEFUL in a small office or home configuration.
Yes, and while it's not an immediate showstopper for me, I'll want to know that expansion is coming imminently before I adopt RAID-Z. > I see phrases like "just add another 7-disk RAIDZ", and I laugh; the > boxes I'm looking at mostly have *4* or *5* hot-swap bays. If I > could, I'd start with a 2-disk RAIDZ, planning to expand it twice > before hitting the system config limit. A *single* 7-disk RAIDZ is > probably beyond my means; two of them is absurd to even consider. > > Possibly this isn't the market ZFS will make money in, but it's the > market *I'm* in. Ditto, ditto, ditto. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
