Had an idea, could someone please tell me why it's wrong? (I feel like it has
to be).
A RaidZ-2 pool with one missing disk offers the same failure resilience as a
healthy RaidZ1 pool (no data loss when one disk fails). I had initially wanted
to do single parity raidz pool (5disk), but after a recent scare decided raidz2
was the way to go. With the help of a sparse file ('mkfile -n 2000G') offlined
after pool creation, I was able to start using my pool before my 6th disk
arrived. Once it's here, I'll swap it in for the sparse file and let it
resilver.
Can someone with a stronger understanding of ZFS tell me why a degraded RaidZ2
(minus one disk) is less efficient than RaidZ1? (Besides the fact that your
pools are always reported as degraded.) I guess the same would apply with
RaidZ2 vs RaidZ3 - 1disk.
Thanks
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
