> Coolio. Learn something new everyday. One more way that raidz is > different from RAID5/6/etc.
Freddie, again, you're wrong. Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to create either raid-5 or raidz using 2 disks. It's not degraded, but it does seem pointless to do this instead of a mirror. Likewise, it's perfectly acceptable to create a raid-6 or raid-dp or raidz2 using 3 disks. It's not degraded, but seems pointless to do this instead of a 3-way mirror. Since it's pointless, some hardware vendors may not implement it in their raid controllers. They might only give you the option of creating a mirror instead. But that doesn't mean it's invalid raid configuration. > So, is it just a "standard" that hardware/software RAID setups require > 3 drives for a RAID5 array? And 4 drives for RAID6? It is just "standard" not to create a silly 2-disk raid5 or raidz. But don't use the word "require." It is common practice to create raidz2 only with 4 disks or more, but again, don't use the word "require." Some people do in fact create these silly configurations just because they're unfamiliar with what it all means. Take Bruno's original post as example, and that article he referenced on sun.com. How these things get started, I'll never know. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
