Cindy,
Thanks so much for the response -- this is the first one that I
consider an actual answer. :-)
I'm still unclear on exactly what I end up with. I apologize in
advance for my ignorance -- the ZFS admin guide assumes knowledge
that I don't yet have.
I assume that disk4 is a hot spare, so if one of the other disks die,
it'll kick into active use. Is data immediately replicated from the
other surviving disks to disk4?
What usable capacity do I end up with? 160 GB (the smallest disk) *
3? Or less, because raidz has parity overhead? Or more, because that
overhead can be stored on the larger disks?
If I didn't need a hot spare, but instead could live with running out
and buying a new drive to add on as soon as one fails, what
configuration would I use then?
Thanks!
Lee
On May 7, 2007, at 2:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Lee,
You can decide whether you want to use ZFS for a root file system now.
You can find this info here:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/boot/
Consider this setup for your other disks, which are:
250, 200 and 160 GB drives, and an external USB 2.0 600 GB drive
250GB = disk1
200GB = disk2
160GB = disk3
600GB = disk4 (spare)
I include a spare in this setup because you want to be protected
from a disk failure. Since the replacement disk must be equal to or
larger than
the disk to replace, I think this is best (safest) solution.
zpool create pool raidz disk1 disk2 disk3 spare disk4
This setup provides less capacity but better safety, which is probably
important for older disks. Because of the spare disk requirement (must
be equal to or larger in size), I don't see a better arrangement. I
hope someone else can provide one.
Your questions remind me that I need to provide add'l information
about
the current ZFS spare feature...
Thanks,
Cindy
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
