Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:30:34 -0300 (BRT) From: "Nenhum_de_Nos" <matheus@eternamente.info> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS - thanks Message-ID: <84665df87e93a6ccf24d9837cbc53eba.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <cf9b1ee00907090525t7a337775q71aa01e6a3173de5@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090709112512.GA44158@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> <73a41d4b72d62b0bfe3d0fb7206376a8.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> <cf9b1ee00907090525t7a337775q71aa01e6a3173de5@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, July 9, 2009 09:25, Dan Naumov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nenhum_de_Nos<matheus@eternamente.info> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, July 9, 2009 08:25, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: >>> Hi, all, >>> >>> I just wanted to say a big big thank you to Kip and all the >>> developers who made ZFS on FreeBSD real. >>> >>> And to everyone who provided helpful comments in the >>> last couple of days. >>> >>> I had to delete and rebuild my zpool to switch from a >>> 12-disk raidz2 to two 6-disk ones, but yesterday I could >>> replace the raw devices with glabel devices and practice >>> replacing a failed disk at the same time. ;-) >>> >>> So now we have this setup: >>> >>> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM >>> zfs ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk100 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk101 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk102 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk103 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk104 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk105 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk106 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk107 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk108 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk109 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk110 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> label/disk111 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>> >>> which will get another enclosure with 6 750-GB-disks, soon. >>> >>> I really like the way I can manage storage from the operating >>> system without propriatary controller management software or >>> even rebooting into the BIOS. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Patrick >> >> I've always been curious about this. is said not good to have many disks >> in one pool. ok then. but this layout you're using in here will have the >> same effect as the twelve disks in only one pool ? (the space here is >> the >> sum of both pools ?) > > Having an enormous pool consisting of dozens of disks is not the > actual problem. Having the pool consist of large (> 9 disks) > raidz/raidz2 "groups" is. > > A single pool consising of 5 x 8 disk raidz (40 disks total) is fine. > A single pool consisting of a 40 (or any amount bigger than 9) disk > raidz is not. thanks. but the final file system in both these cases are the same ? (what I'll see in df -h). matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?84665df87e93a6ccf24d9837cbc53eba.squirrel>