>>>>> "djm" == Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>> "bf" == Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
djm> Why are you planning on using RAIDZ-2 rather than mirroring ?
isn't MTDL sometimes shorter for mirroring than raidz2? I think that
is the biggest point of raidz2, is it not?
bf> The probability of three disks independently dying during the
bf> resilver
The thing I never liked about MTDL models is their assuming disk
failures are independent events. It seems likely to get a bad batch
of disks if you buy a single model from a single manufacturer, and buy
all the disks at the same time. They may have consecutive serial
numbers, ship in the same box, u.s.w.
You can design around marginal power supplies that feed a bank of
disks with excessive ripple voltage, cause them all to write
marginally readable data, and later make you think the disks all went
bad at once. or use long fibre cables to put chassis in different
rooms with separate aircon. or tell yourself other strange disaster
stories and design around them. But fixing the lack of diversity in
manufacturing and shipping seems hard.
For my low-end stuff, I have been buying the two sides of mirrors from
two companies, but I don't know how workable that is for people trying
to look ``professional''. It's also hard to do with raidz since there
are so few hard drive brands left.
Retailers ought to charge an extra markup for ``aging'' the drives
for you like cheese, and maintian several color-coded warehouses in
which to do the aging: ``sell me 10 drives that were aged for six
months in the Green warehouse.''
pgpQP4NYa6j2S.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
