The only other zfs pool in my system is a mirrored rpool (2 500 gb disks). This is for my own personal use, so it's not like the data is mission critical in some sort of production environment.
The advantage I can see with going with raidz2 + spare over raidz3 and no spare is I would spend much less time running in a degraded state when a drive fails (I'd have to RMA the drive and wait most likely a week or more for a replacement). The disadvantage of raidz2 + spare is the event of a triple disk failure. This is most likely not going to occur with 9 disks, but certainly is possible. If 3 disks fail before one can be rebuilt with the spare, the data will be lost. So, I guess the main question I have is, how much a performance hit is noticed when a raidz3 array is running in a degraded state? Thanks - Jack -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
