Am 14.10.10 17:48, schrieb Edward Ned Harvey:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Toby Thain
I don't want to heat up the discussion about ZFS managed discs vs.
HW raids, but if RAID5/6 would be that bad, no one would use it
anymore.
It is. And there's no reason not to point it out. The world has
Well, neither one of the above statements is really fair.
The truth is: radi5/6 are generally not that bad. Data integrity failures
are not terribly common (maybe one bit per year out of 20 large disks or
something like that.)
And in order to reach the conclusion "nobody would use it," the people using
it would have to first *notice* the failure. Which they don't. That's kind
of the point.
Since I started using ZFS in production, about a year ago, on three servers
totaling approx 1.5TB used, I have had precisely one checksum error, which
ZFS corrected. I have every reason to believe, if that were on a raid5/6,
the error would have gone undetected and nobody would have noticed.
Point taken!
So, what would you suggest, if I wanted to create really big pools? Say
in the 100 TB range? That would be quite a number of single drives then,
especially when you want to go with zpool raid-1.
Cheers,
budy
--
Stephan Budach
Jung von Matt/it-services GmbH
Glashüttenstraße 79
20357 Hamburg
Tel: +49 40-4321-1353
Fax: +49 40-4321-1114
E-Mail: stephan.bud...@jvm.de
Internet: http://www.jvm.com
Geschäftsführer: Ulrich Pallas, Frank Wilhelm
AG HH HRB 98380
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
