On 21-Aug-09, at 21:04 , Richard Elling wrote:
My point is, RAIDZx+1 SHOULD be simple. I don't entirely
understand why it hasn't been implemented. I can only imagine like
so many other things it's because there hasn't been significant
customer demand. Unfortunate if it's as simple as I believe it is
to implement. (No, don't ask me to do it, I put in my time
programming in college and have no desire to do it again :))
You can get in the same ballpark with at least two top-level raidz2
devs and
copies=2. If you have three or more top-level raidz2 vdevs, then
you can even
do better with copies=3 ;-)
Maybe this is noted somewhere, but I did not realize that "copies"
invoked logic that distributed the copies among vdevs? Can you please
provide some pointers about this?
Thanks,
A.
--
Adam Sherman
CTO, Versature Corp.
Tel: +1.877.498.3772 x113
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
