Blake wrote: >> Obviously from a cost AND size perspective it would be best/smart to go >> for option 3 and have a raidz of 4x250 and one of 6x500. >> >> Comments? >> >>
How long are you going to need this data? Do you have an easy and quick way to back it all up? Is the volume you need going to grow over time? For *my* home server, the need to expand over time ended up dominating the disk architecture, and I chose a less efficient (more space/money lost to redundant storage) architecture that was easier to upgrade in small increments, because that fit my intention to maintain the data long-term, and the lack of any efficient easy way to back up and restore the data (I *do* back it up to external firewire disks, but it takes 8 hours or so, so I don't want to have to have the system down for a full two-way copy when I need to upgrade the disk sizes). -- David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Photos: 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
