From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun  3 23:41:09 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF67F2C6
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue,  3 Jun 2014 23:41:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from out-mr002.lax02.mailroute.net (mr002.lax02.mailroute.net
 [199.89.1.5])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "*.mailroute.net", Issuer "AlphaSSL CA - SHA256 - G2" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EE8327FC
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue,  3 Jun 2014 23:41:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by out-mr002.lax02.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3gjqS84Rg1z5w6Q;
 Tue,  3 Jun 2014 23:38:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute
Received: from out-mr002.lax02.mailroute.net ([199.89.1.5])
 by localhost (mr002.lax02.mailroute.net [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner,
 port 10026)
 with LMTP id vPda_f2Auftr; Tue,  3 Jun 2014 23:37:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from red.stonehenge.com (red.stonehenge.com [208.79.95.2])
 by out-mr002.lax02.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3gjqS63FLDz5vy5;
 Tue,  3 Jun 2014 23:37:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by red.stonehenge.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
 id 1F6912F4E; Tue,  3 Jun 2014 16:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
Subject: Re: ZFS Recommendations for a new server
References: <CAHieY7Ros7sXaOpWdR7E0fZvT_m+z+j79CaE8szxvBEyJeHhFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405301035450.7952@wonkity.com>
x-mayan-date: Long count = 13.0.1.8.9; tzolkin = 13 Muluc; haab = 2 Zotz
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:37:55 -0700
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405301035450.7952@wonkity.com> (Warren Block's
 message of "Fri, 30 May 2014 10:39:35 -0600 (MDT)")
Message-ID: <86egz5h8do.fsf@red.stonehenge.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Alejandro Imass <aimass@yabarana.com>,
 FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 23:41:09 -0000

>>>>> "Warren" == Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> writes:

Warren> Second, because it allows ZFS to deal directly with the disks.
Warren> If the disks are hidden under a hardware RAID system, it can
Warren> keep ZFS from seeing problems when they first begin.

Somewhat apocryphal, since I can't seem to google the reference, but
I've heard that ZFS actually detected checksum problems in supposedly
production-hardware RAID boxes.

In another story, I've heard that using super cheap but fast disks with
a good ZFS controller is more cost effective (and faster) than the
equivalent hardware RAID solutions.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
Still trying to think of something clever for the fourth line of this .sig