ZFS - thanks

[Nenhum_de_Nos]

On Thu, July 9, 2009 09:25, Dan Naumov wrote:
> 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.

thanks. but the final file system in both these cases are the same ? (what
I'll see in df -h).

matheus

-- 
We will call you cygnus,
The God of balance you shall be

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style