Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote: >> I'll probably be having 16 Seagate 15K5 SAS disks, >> 150 GB each. Two in HW raid1 for the OS, two in HW >> raid 1 or 10 for the transaction log. The OS does not >> need to be on ZFS, but could be. >> > > Whatever you do, DO NOT mix zfs and HW RAID. >
I disagree. There are very good reasons to use RAID arrays along with ZFS. Each case may be slightly different, but there is nothing wrong with enjoying the benefits of both. > ZFS likes to handle redundancy all by itself. It's much smarter than any HW > RAID and when does NOT like it when it detects a data corruption it can't fix > (i.e. no replicas). HW RAID's can't fix data corruption and that leads to a > very unhappy ZFS. > > Let ZFS handle all redundancy. > I disagree, but only slightly :-). I'd say, let ZFS manage at least one level of redundancy. A reminder for the group: there are failures which can and do occur in the data path between RAID arrays and hosts. ZFS can detect these, but can only automatically correct the errors when it is managing a level of redundancy. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
