On Tue, February 8, 2011 13:03, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: >> 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. > > Easier to work with, yes, but a RAIDz2 will statistically be safer than a > set of mirrors, since in many cases, you loose a drive and during > resilver, you find bad sectors on another drive in the same VDEV, > resulting in data corruption. With RAIDz2 (or 3), the chance of these > errors to be on the same place on all drives is quite minimal. With a > (striped?) mirror, a single bitflip on the 'healthy' drive will involve > data corruption.
Wait, are you saying that the handling of errors in RAIDZ and mirrors is completely different? That it dumps the mirror disk immediately, but keeps trying to get what it can from the RAIDZ disk? Because otherwise, you assertion doesn't seem to hold up. -- 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
