hrm, i always thought raidz took longer....learn something every day =)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Richard Elling <richard.ell...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Sep 16, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote: > > Mirrors are much quicker to replace if one DOES fail though...so i would >> think that bad stuff could happen with EITHER solution....If you buy a bunch >> of hard drives for a raidz and they are all from the same batch they might >> all fail around the same time...what if you have a raidz2 group and 2 drives >> fail, then you're adding 2 drives back and another fails before it's >> complete because it takes SO long to resilver? At least with mirrors they >> resilver fast. >> > > In general, resilver is bound by either the media write bandwidth of the > resilvering device > or the random IOP capacity of the remaining good drives. Although I don't > know of any > studies comparing mirrors vs raidz resilvering, I would not expect much > difference between > the two, all else held constant. > -- richard > >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
