Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:20:45 +0000 From: krad <kraduk@googlemail.com> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: John <comp.john@googlemail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: simple zfs query Message-ID: <d36406631003250720o2d7ba5b6u9b470cc05049b607@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4BAB2773.5060503@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20100324103151.GA2598@potato> <4BA9F87E.7050205@infracaninophile.co.uk> <d36406631003241423x4fade0dfra3f45f2f4784648c@mail.gmail.com> <4BAB2773.5060503@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 March 2010 09:05, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 24/03/2010 21:23:54, krad wrote: > > If you want 100% of the drives you could have a pool per drive. Its not > as > > nice as one big pool, but its less risky than one big raid0 > > Errr... no it's not. The risk of something going wrong is exactly the > same. The only advantage is that you may have less data to restore when > things do go wrong. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > - -- > Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard > Flat 3 > PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate > Kent, CT11 9PW > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkurJ3MACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyjLwCfdkpLP2MvtWPWBOE4Db/bJRNR > tBkAnRA2ZcoGN/LwGaoY9gfkNkdOq6kE > =O87f > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > That was my point. Less to restore, less risk of stuff being out of date or corrupt. So less risk than a stripe. Marginal maybe i agree, but less all the same. You could also make copies=2 on the root pool fs if you are using one big stripe, to try and reduce the risk. However this is more wasteful than raidz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d36406631003250720o2d7ba5b6u9b470cc05049b607>