[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [zfs-discuss] Size discrepancy (beyond expected amount?)

Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Size discrepancy beyond expected amount?
From: Harry Putnam
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:38:08 -0500
Blake <[email protected]> writes:

> I'd be careful about raidz unless you have either:
> 1 - automatic notification of failure set up using fmadm
> 2 - at least one hot spare

Sorry to be so dense here but can you expand a little on what a `hot
spare' is.  Do you mean just a spare similar sized disk to use if one

> Because raidz is parity-based (it does some math-magic to give you
> redundancy), replacing a disk that's failed can take a very long time
> compared to mirror resilvering (the zfs term for rebuilding
> redundancy).

How long are you talking about there?  For a 500gb drive to be
inserted in a disk failure situation and have the data rebuilt on it.

> You can get a nice 1000gb SATA drive on newegg or a similar site for
> about $90 - well worth the extra money ($120) for the convenience of
> mirroring.  Mirrors are probably also faster for any kind of video
> playback (like the video projects you mention).

I guess I'm dumb as a stick here.. Do you mean 1 costs $90 and 2 costs
120? (Or is it a type and you meant $180).  Then I'd install 2 1000gb
sata drives in a mirror configuration, instead of the 3 500gb drives
I've already installed?

zfs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>