On Mon, February 7, 2011 14:59, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > 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.)
Typo; I don't in fact have a non-redundant vdev in my main data pool! It's *2*x1TB at the start of that list. -- 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
