On Sat, February 5, 2011 11:54, Gaikokujin Kyofusho wrote: > Thank you kebabber. I will try out indiana and virtual box to play around > with it a bit. > > Just to make sure I understand your example, if I say had a 4x2tb drives, > 2x750gb, 2x1.5tb drives etc then i could make 3 groups (perhaps 1 raidz1 + > 1 mirrored + 1 mirrored), in terms of accessing them would they just be > mounted like 3 partitions or could it all be accessed like one big > partition?
A ZFS pool can contain many vdevs; you could put the three groups you describe into one pool, and then assign one (or more) file-systems to that pool. Putting them all in one pool seems to me the natural way to handle it; they're all similar levels of redundancy. It's more flexible to have everything in one pool, generally. (You could also make separate pools; my experience, for what it's worth, argues for making pools based on redundancy and performance (and only worry about BIG differences), and assign file-systems to pools based on needs for redundancy and performance. And for my home system I just have one big data pool, currently consisting of 1x1TB, 2x400GB, 2x400GB, plus 1TB hot spare.) Or you could stick strictly to mirrors; 4 pools 2x2T, 2x2T, 2x750G, 2x1.5T. Mirrors are more flexible, give you more redundancy, and are much easier to work with. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
