Netapp does NOT recommend 100 percent. Perhaps you should talk to netapp or one of their partners who know their tech instead of their competitors next time.
Zfs, the way its currently implemented will require roughly the same as netapp... Which still isn't 100. On 8/30/08, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just saw this blog post linked from the register, it's EMC pointing out that > their array wastes less disk space than either HP or NetApp. I'm loving the > 10% of space they have to reserve for snapshots, and you can't add more o_0. > > HP similarly recommend 20% of reserved space for snapshots, and NetApp > recommend a whopping 100% (that was one reason we didn't buy NetApp > actually). > > Could anybody say how ZFS would match up to these figures? I'd have thought > a 14+2 raid-z2 scheme similar to NFS' would probably be fairest. > > http://chucksblog.typepad.com/chucks_blog/2008/08/your-storage-mi.html > > Ross > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
