similar to: RAIDZn+1 (related to the h/w raid ponderings)

The default blocksize is 128K. If you are using mirrors, then each block on disk will be 128K whenever possible. But if you''re using raidzN with a capacity of M disks (M disks useful capacity + N disks redundancy) then the block size on each individual disk will be 128K / M. Right? This is one of the reasons the raidzN resilver code is inefficient. Since you end up waiting for the

"Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?" That''s a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula that I have lately. Reading up on theory of RAID5, I grasped the idea of the write hole (where one of the sectors of the stripe, such as the parity data, doesn''t get written - leading to invalid data upon read). In general, I think the same applies to bitrot of

Folks, We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server runs on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores to zfs and continue to have checksum errors -- they are corrected but this improves on the ufs inode errors that require system shutdown and fsck. So, I am recommending that we buy small jbods, do raidz2 and let zfs handle the raiding of these boxes. As we need more

I''m seeing some pretty pitiful performance using ZFS on a NFS server, with a ZFS volume exported (only with rw=host.foo.com,root=host.foo.com opts) and mounted on a Linux host running kernel 2.4.31. This linux kernel I''m working with is limited in that I can only do NFSv2 mounts... irregardless of that aspect, I''m sure something''s amiss. I mounted the zfs-based

I made a bad judgment and now my raidz pool is corrupted. I have a raidz pool running on Opensolaris b85. I wanted to try out freenas 0.7 and tried to add my pool to freenas. After adding the zfs disk, vdev and pool. I decided to back out and went back to opensolaris. Now my raidz pool will not mount and got the following errors. Hope someone expert can help me recover from this error.

Hi, I have setup an old Compaq Proliant DL580 with 2 xeon @700MHz 2Gb RAM two SmartArray 5300 controllers and 12 drives in an array enclosure. I am running the latest opensolaris update bfu''ed from binaries since I could not build from source. I am controlling the drives with the cpqary3 driver (Solaris 10) from HP. Initially the array had 7 drives and I created a raidz zfs pool

So, I took four 1.5TB drives and made RAIDZ, RAIDZ1 and RAIDZ2 pools. The sizes for the pools were 5.3TB, 4.0TB, and 2.67TB respectively. The man page for RAIDZ states that "The raidz vdev type is an alias for raidz1." So why was there a difference between the sizes for RAIDZ and RAIDZ1? Shouldn''t the size be the same for "zpool create raidz ..." and "zpool

I''m trying to get maybe 200 MB/sec over NFS for large movie files (need large capacity to hold all of them). Are there any rules of thumb on how much RAM is needed to handle this (probably RAIDZ for all the disks) with zfs, and how large a server should be used? The throughput required is not so large, so I am thinking an X4100 M2 or X4150 should be plenty. This message posted from

Greetings Have used zfs raidz for while and question rised is it possible to expand raidz with additional disks. Got answer pool yes but raidz "group" no. So very high level idea for you , maybe already know. And i''m not detail level expert of zfs so here might be "trivial" things for you. So could add operation enhanced so that it allow to add additional

<http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#RAID-Z_Configuration_Requirements_and_Recommendations> says that the number of disks in a RAIDZ should be (N+P) with N = {2,4,8} and P = {1,2}. But if you go down the page just a little further to the thumper configuration examples, none of the 3 examples follow this recommendation! I will have 10 disks to put into a

The time has come to expand my OpenSolaris NAS. Right now I have 6 1TB Samsung Spinpoints in a Raidz2 configuration. I also have a mirrored root pool. The Raidz2 configuration should be for my most critical data - but right now it is holding everything so I need to add some more pools and move some data around. To start I need a vdev I will call "temp" that acts as a networked bit

First time user of Solaris and ZFS .... I have Solaris 10 installed on the primary IDE drive of my motherboard. I also have a 4 disc RAIDZ setup on my sata connections. I setup up a successful 1.5TB ZFS server with all discs operational. Well ... I was trying out something new and I borked my Solaris install HDD; the main problem is that I also had my RAIDZ zpool operational. I don''t

Already making use of it, thank you! http://www.justinconover.com/blog/?p=17 I took 6x250gb disk and tried raidz2/raidz/none # zpool create zfs raidz2 c0d0 c1d0 c2d0 c3d0 c7d0 c8d0 df -h zfs Filesystem size used avail capacity Mounted on zfs 915G 49K 915G 1% /zfs # zpool destroy -f zfs Plain old raidz (raid-5ish) # zpool create zfs raidz c0d0

Hi, I have E450 with 20 SCSI disks. 1 disk is used as a boot disk with critical filesystems like /, /usr, /var, etc. then othe 19 disks are configured with ZFS in raidz. Are there any significant performance implications of using raidz with such a large number of disks? Would there much to be gained in performance if I were to simply configure striping across those disks, instead of raidz? This

This day went from usual Thursday to worst day of my life in the span of about 10 seconds. Here''s the scenario: 2 Computer, both Solaris 10u8, one is the primary, one is the backup. Primary system is RAIDZ2, Backup is RAIDZ with 4 drives. Every night, Primary mirrors to Backup using the ''zfs send'' command. The Backup receives that with ''zfs recv

Hi, I installed a zpool containing of zpool __mirror ____disk1 500gb ____disk2 500gb __raidz ____disk3 1tb ____disk4 1tb ____disk5 1tb It works fine, but it displays the wrong size (terminal -> zpool list). It should be 500gb (mirrored) + 2TB (3TB raidz) = 2,5 TB, right? But it displays it has 3,17TB diskspace available. I first created the mirror and then added the raidz to it (zpool add

> > The fact that Asterisk is "soft" and you're trying to sell to > an IT Company.. > Just to clarify, we make up the IT company and we'd be selling it to our customers that may or may not be IT based. The company does run VoIP but does not use Asterisk (using VoIP to add additional local lines in different area codes). What I'm trying to accomplish is a

When I attempt to create a 46 disk pool with 5 and 6 disk raidz vdevs, I get the following message: mismatched replication level: both 5-way and 6-way raidz vdevs are present mismatched replication level: both 6-way and 5-way raidz vdevs are present I expect this is correct.[1] But what does it mean for performance or other issues? Why am I being warned? The factory config for x4500s had the a

Ok, previous threads have lead me to believe that I want to make raidz vdevs [0] either 3, 5 or 9 disks in size [1]. Let''s say I have 8 disks. Do I want to create a zfs pool with a 5-disk vdev and a 3-disk vdev? Are there performance issues with mixing differently sized raidz vdevs in a pool? If there *is* a performance hit to mix like that, would it be greater or lesser than building

Hey, I got a weird one for you guys, I am running vanilla 1.2.4 and have all incoming calls come in as SIP from teliax. Twice over the past week 2 callers who have called in around the same time end up talking to each other instead of going through the ivr or at some point during the IVR. One said, yeah i was talking to another patient and we had a convo. I have double checked the dialplan and