On Dec 22, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Raid10 provides excellent performance and if performance is a
priority then I recommend it, but I was under the impression that
resiliency was the priority, as raidz2/raidz3 provide greater
resiliency for a sacrifice in performance.
Why are people talking about "RAID-5", RAID-6", and "RAID-10" on
this list? This is the zfs-discuss list and zfs does not do
"RAID-5", "RAID-6", or "RAID-10".
Because raid10 is shorter to type then pool of mirrors, and for new
comers it's easier to grasp these terms. Notice how I refer to raidz/
2/3 and not raid5/6? Cause it's roughly the same amount of characters.
-Ross
PS Really Bob?
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
