Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 01:55:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: krad <kraduk@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, xorquewasp@googlemail.com Subject: RE: Request for opinions - gvinum or ccd? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0906010153570.27108@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <0229B3BF1BE94C82AA11FD06CBE0BDEF@uk.tiscali.intl> References: <20090530175239.GA25604@logik.internal.network> <20090530144354.2255f722@bhuda.mired.org> <20090530191840.GA68514@logik.internal.network> <20090530162744.5d77e9d1@bhuda.mired.org> <A5BB2D2B836A4438B1B7BD8420FCC6A3@uk.tiscali.intl> <20090531201445.GA82420@logik.internal.network> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905312355240.26545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <0229B3BF1BE94C82AA11FD06CBE0BDEF@uk.tiscali.intl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> should really use raidz2 in zfs (or some double parity raid on other > systems) if you are worried about data integrity. The reason being the odds > of the crc checking not detecting an error are much more likely these days. > The extra layer of parity pushes these odds into being much bigger you are right with capacity but not performance. once again - RAIDz is more like RAID-3 not RAID-5, RAIDz2 is somehow like RAID3 with double parity disk. you will get IOps from RAIDz/RAIDz2 set not much more than from single drive, even on reads. But if it's used for mostly linear reading big files you are right.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0906010153570.27108>