On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Will Murnane wrote: > > That's easy to say, but what if there were no larger alternative? > > Suppose I have a pool composed of those 1.5TB Seagate disks, and > > Hitachi puts out some of the "same" capacity that are actually > > slightly smaller. A drive fails in my array, I buy a Hitachi disk to > > replace it, and it doesn't work. If I can't get a large enough drive > > to replace the missing disk with, it'd be a shame to have to destroy > > and recreate the pool on smaller media. > > What do you propose that OpenSolaris should do about this? Should > OpenSolaris use some sort of a table of "common size" drives, or use > an algorithm which determines certain discrete usage values based on > declared drive sizes and a margin for error? What should OpenSolaris > of today do with the 20TB disk drives of tomorrow? What should the > margin for error of a 30TB disk drive be? Is it ok to arbitrarily > ignore 3/4TB of storage space? > > If the "drive" is actually a huge 20TB LUN exported from a SAN RAID > array, how should the margin for error be handled in that case? > > Bob > ====================================== > Bob Friesenhahn > bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ > > Take a look at drives on the market, figure out a percentage, and call it a day. If there's a significant issue with "20TB" drives of the future, issue a bug report and a fix, just like every other issue that comes up. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
