Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:12:21 -0800 From: Artem Belevich <fbsdlist@src.cx> To: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Chris Forgeron <cforgeron@acsi.ca> Subject: Re: ZFS - moving from a zraid1 to zraid2 pool with 1.5tb disks Message-ID: <AANLkTimezasVY%2BMJjWn2T9sBGQV-JrNmYqRwv_gPYPJP@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <488AE93A-97B9-4F01-AD0A-0098E4B329C3@my.gd> References: <4D1C6F90.3080206@my.gd> <ifsia5$5ub$2@dough.gmane.org> <4D21E679.80002@my.gd> <84882169-0461-480F-8B4C-58E794BCC8E6@my.gd> <BEBC15BA440AB24484C067A3A9D38D7E0149F32D13E3@server7.acsi.ca> <488AE93A-97B9-4F01-AD0A-0098E4B329C3@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> wrote: > Well actually... > > raidz2: > - 7x 1.5 tb = 10.5tb > - 2 parity drives > > raidz1: > - 3x 1.5 tb = 4.5 tb > - 4x 1.5 tb = 6 tb , total 10.5tb > - 2 parity drives in split thus different raidz1 arrays > > So really, in both cases 2 different parity drives and same storage... In second case you get better performance, but lose some data protection. It's still raidz1 and you can't guarantee functionality in all cases of two drives failing. If two drives fail in the same vdev, your entire pool will be gone. Granted, it's better than single-vdev raidz1, but it's *not* as good as raidz2. --Artem
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimezasVY%2BMJjWn2T9sBGQV-JrNmYqRwv_gPYPJP>