Ah, okay, that makes sense. I wasn't offended, just confused. :) Thanks for the clarification On Oct 13, 2012 2:01 AM, "Jim Klimov" <jimkli...@cos.ru> wrote:
> 2012-10-12 19:34, Freddie Cash пишет: > >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Jim Klimov <jimkli...@cos.ru> wrote: >> >>> In fact, you can (although not recommended due to balancing reasons) >>> have tlvdevs of mixed size (like in Freddie's example) and even of >>> different structure (i.e. mixing raidz and mirrors or even single >>> LUNs) by forcing the disk attachment. >>> >> >> My example shows 4 raidz2 vdevs, with each vdev having 6 disks, along >> with a log vdev, and a cache vdev. Not sure where you're seeing an >> imbalance. Maybe it's because the pool is currently resilvering a >> drive, thus making it look like one of the vdevs has 7 drives? >> > > No, my comment was about this pool having an 8Tb TLVDEV and > several 5.5Tb TLVDEVs - and that this kind of setup is quite > valid for ZFS - and that while striping data across disks > it can actually do better than round-robin, giving more data > to the larger components. But more weight on one side is > called imbalance ;) > > Sorry if my using your example offended you somehow. > > //Jim > > ______________________________**_________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/**mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss<http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
