if a vdev fails you loose the pool. if you go with raidz1 and 2 of the RIGHT drives fail (2 in the same vdev) your pool is lost.
I was faced with a similar situation recently and decided that raidz2 was the better option. It's comes down to resilver times....if you look at how long it will take to replace a failed drive then look at the likelyhood of a drive failing durring that process then raidz1 is much less attractive. On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Ed Fang <e...@fang.org> wrote: > Replacing my current media server with another larger capacity media > server. Also switching over to solaris/zfs. > > Anyhow we have 24 drive capacity. These are for large sequential access > (large media files) used by no more than 3 or 5 users at a time. I'm > inquiring as to what the best configuration for this is for vdevs. I'm > considering the following configurations > > 4 x x6 vdevs in RaidZ1 configuration > 3 x x8 vdevs in RaidZ2 configuration > > Obviously if a drive fails, it'll take a good several days to resilver. > The data is important but not critical. Using raidz1 allows you one drive > failure, but my understanding is that if the zpool has four vdevs using > raidz1, then any single vdev failure of more than one drive may fail the > entire zpool ???? If that is the case, then it sounds better to consider 3 > x8 with raidz2. > > Am I on the right track here ? Thanks > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
