Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:15:28 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> Subject: Re: ZFS - thanks Message-ID: <4A589E80.10901@andric.com> In-Reply-To: <20090711084042.GA77702@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <20090709112512.GA44158@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> <73a41d4b72d62b0bfe3d0fb7206376a8.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> <cf9b1ee00907090525t7a337775q71aa01e6a3173de5@mail.gmail.com> <84665df87e93a6ccf24d9837cbc53eba.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> <cf9b1ee00907090539i70bf97eq32fe0aa960e9dc52@mail.gmail.com> <20090711084042.GA77702@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2009-07-11 10:40, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-Jul-09 15:39:35 +0300, Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> wrote: >> A single 40 disk raidz (DO NOT DO THIS) will have 40 disks total, 39 >> disks worth of space and will definately explode on you sooner rather >> than later (probably on the first import, export or scrub). > > Can you provide a reference for this statement. AFAIK, the only > reason for the upper recommended limit of 9 disks is performance. The more disks you use in one RAID set, the higher the probability that more than one disk will fail at the same time. An interesting read can be found here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A589E80.10901>