Kent Watsen wrote: >> (4+1)*2 is 2x faster, and in theory is less likely to have wasted space >> in transaction group (unlikely seen) >> (4+1)*2 is cheaper to upgrade in place because of its fewer elements >> > I'm aware of these benefits but I feel that having one large lun is > easier to manage - in that I can allocate the entrire array's storage > arbitrarily... I fear that if I split the array in half, I might end up > with not enough space on one side and too much on the other. > Otherwise, I'd do this in a heartbeat... > > Any advice? > If you're using both halves for the same ZFS pool, then it doesn't matter; the allocation to various filesystems takes place at that level. And if you're considering using the entire set of drives, allocated as one hunk, for ZFS, then you might just as well divide it in half as above, if you like those two benefits more than the benefits of doing it the other way (which I agree you probably should). --
David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://dd-b.net/dd-b Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
