Orvar Korvar wrote: > Oh, thanx for your very informative answer. Ive added a link to your > information in this thread: > > But... Sorry, but I wrote wrong. I meant "I will not recommend against HW > raid + ZFS anymore" instead of "... recommend against HW raid". > > The windows people's question is: > which is better? > 1. HW raid + ZFS > 2. ZFS > > Ive told them that ZFS prefers to NOT have HW raid. But they ask me why they > shouldnt use ZFS + HW raid and why they should only use ZFS. > > They are using ZFS no matter what. The question is, is ZFS that good, that HW > raid can be omitted? Does HW raid + ZFS give any gains, compared to only ZFS? > > It seems that I have to recommend them to keep their HW raid when they try > out ZFS? Ive gotten them interested in ZFS, enough to try it out. It was a > lengthy discussion that took much time and patience. > As you can see, there isn't a straight answer because there are so many possibilities.
One golden rule that might help: Always let ZFS handle the top level redundancy so it can correct errors. Whether you export JBODs from a SAN and build a raidz or export RAID5 LUNs and build a ZFS mirror what matters is ZFS has redundancy. -- Ian. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
