Just finished reading the following excellent post: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1670144
And started thinking what would be the best long term setup for a home server, given limited number of disk slots (say 10). I considered something like simply do a 2way mirror. What are the chances for a very specific drive to fail in 2 way mirror? What if I do not want to take that chance? I could always put "copies=2" (or more) to my important datasets and take some risk and tolerate such a failure. But chances are, everything that is not copies=2 will have some data on those devices, and will be lost. So I was thinking, how can I limit the damage, how to inject some kind of "damage control". One of the ideas that sparkled is have a "max devices" property for each data set, and limit how many mirrored devices a given data set can be spread on. I mean if you don't need the performance, you can limit (minimize) the device, should your capacity allow this. Imagine this scenario: You lost 2 disks, and unfortunately you lost the 2 sides of a mirror. You have 2 choices to pick from: - loose entirely Mary, Gary's and Kelly's "documents" or - loose a small piece of Everyone's "documents". This could be implement via something similar to: read/write property "target device spread" read only property of "achieved device spread" as this will be size dependant. Opinions? Remember. The goal is damage control. I know 2x raidz2 offers better protection for more capacity (altought less performance, but that's no the point). -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
