simple zfs query

[krad]

On 25 March 2010 09:05, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at 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 Less to restore, less risk of stuff being out of date or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