ZFS - thanks

[Dan Naumov]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nenhum_de_Nos<matheus at eternamente.info> wrote:
>
> On Thu, July 9, 2009 08:25, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> I just wanted to say a big big thank you to Kip and all the
>> developers who made ZFS on FreeBSD real.
>>
>> And to everyone who provided helpful comments in the
>> last couple of days.
>>
>> I had to delete and rebuild my zpool to switch from a
>> 12-disk raidz2 to two 6-disk ones, but yesterday I could
>> replace the raw devices with glabel devices and practice
>> replacing a failed disk at the same time. ;-)
>>
>> So now we have this setup:
>>
>>       NAME               STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
>>       zfs                ONLINE       0     0     0
>>         raidz2           ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk100  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk101  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk102  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk103  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk104  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk105  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>         raidz2           ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk106  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk107  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk108  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk109  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk110  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>           label/disk111  ONLINE       0     0     0
>>
>> which will get another enclosure with 6 750-GB-disks, soon.
>>
>> I really like the way I can manage storage from the operating
>> system without propriatary controller management software or
>> even rebooting into the BIOS.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Patrick
>
> I've always been curious about this. is said not good to have many disks
> in one pool. ok then. but this layout you're using in here will have the
> same effect as the twelve disks in only one pool ? (the space here is the
> sum of both pools ?)

Having an enormous pool consisting of dozens of disks is not the
actual problem. Having the pool consist of large (> 9 disks)
raidz/raidz2 "groups" is.

A single pool consising of 5 x 8 disk raidz (40 disks total) is fine.
A single pool consisting of a 40 (or any amount bigger than 9) disk
raidz is not.

- Sincerely,
Dan Naumov