similar to: ZFS RAID-Z for Two-Disk Workstation Setup?

Hi All, I am looking at ZFS and I get that they call it RAIDZ which is similar to RAID 5, but what about RAID 10? Isn''t a RAID 10 setup better for data protection? So if I have 8 x 1.5tb drives, wouldn''t I: - mirror drive 1 and 5 - mirror drive 2 and 6 - mirror drive 3 and 7 - mirror drive 4 and 8 Then stripe 1,2,3,4 Then stripe 5,6,7,8 How does one do this with ZFS?

Apologies for the blank message (if it came through). I have heard here and there that there might be in development a plan to make it such that a raid-z can grow its "raid-z''ness" to accommodate a new disk added to it. Example: I have 4Disks in a raid-z[12] configuration. I am uncomfortably low on space, and would like to add a 5th disk. The idea is to pop in disk 5 and have

Hi all :) I''ve been wanting to make the switch from XFS over RAID5 to ZFS/RAIDZ2 for some time now, ever since I read about ZFS the first time. Absolutely amazing beast! I''ve built my own little hobby server at home and have a boatload of disks in different sizes that I''ve been using together to build a RAID5 array on Linux using mdadm in two layers; first layer is

Given a 1.6TB ZFS Z-Raid consisting 6 disks: And a system that does an extreme amount of small /(<20K) /random reads /(more than twice as many reads as writes) / 1) What performance gains, if any does Z-Raid offer over other RAID or Large filesystem configurations? 2) What is any hindrance is Z-Raid to this configuration, given the complete randomness and size of these accesses? Would

Hi, Does anyone use Seagate ST32000542AS disks with ZFS? I wonder if the performance is not that ugly as with WD Green WD20EARS disks. Thanks, -- Piotr Jasiukajtis | estibi | SCA OS0072 http://estseg.blogspot.com

Hi list, as this matter pops up every now and then in posts on this list I just want to clarify that the real performance of RaidZ (in its current implementation) is NOT anything that follows from raidz-style data efficient redundancy or the copy-on-write design used in ZFS. In a M-Way mirrored setup of N disks you get the write performance of the worst disk and a read performance that is

Hi all Having managed ZFS for about two years, I want to post a wishlist. INCLUDED IN ZFS - Mirror existing single-drive filesystem, as in ''zfs attach'' - RAIDz-stuff - single and hopefully multiple-parity RAID configuration with block-level checksumming - Background scrub/fsck - Pool-like management with multiple RAIDs/mirrors (VDEVs) - Autogrow as in ZFS autoexpand NOT

Hi, i''m new to the list so please bare with me. This isn''t an OpenSolaris related problem but i hope it''s still the right list to post to. I''m on the way to move a backup server to using zfs based storage, but i don''t want to spend too much drives to parity (the 16 drives are attached to a 3ware raid controller so i could also just use raid6 there). I

I skimmed the archives and found a thread from July earlier this year about RAIDZ expansion. Not adding more RAIDZ stripes to a pool, but adding more drives to the stripe itself. I''m wondering if an RFE has been submitted for this and if any progress has been made, or is expected? I find myself out of space on my current RAID5 setup and would love to flip over to a ZFS raidz2 solution

"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

I currently have a 7x1.5tb raidz1. I want to add "phase 2" which is another 7x1.5tb raidz1 Can I add the second phase to the first phase and basically have two raid5''s striped (in raid terms?) Yes, I probably should upgrade the zpool format too. Currently running snv_104. Also should upgrade to 110. If that is possible, would anyone happen to have the simple command lines to

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

I have a 5-500GB disk Raid-Z pool that has been producing checksum errors right after upgrading SXCE to build 121. They seem to be randomly occurring on all 5 disks, so it doesn''t look like a disk failure situation. Repeatingly running a scrub on the pools randomly repairs between 20 and a few hundred checksum errors. Since I hadn''t physically touched the machine, it seems a

I''ve got 12Gb or so of db+web in a zone on a ZFS filesystem on a mirrored zpool. Noticed during some performance testing today that its i/o bound but using hardly any CPU, so I thought turning on compression would be a quick win. I know I''ll have to copy files for existing data to be compressed, so I was going to make a new filesystem, enable compression and rysnc everything in,

I''m playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my 6x 300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my data at home (video, photos, music, etc). I''m debating between: 6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool --or-- 2x (3x 300GB disks in a pool) mirrored I''ve read up a lot on ZFS, but I can''t really figure out which is

Is there a way to convert a 2 disk raid-z file system to a mirror without backing up the data and restoring? We have this: bash-3.00# zpool status pool: archives state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM archives ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0

I have zpool like that pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz3-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t4d0 ONLINE

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

1. I have a 4x18GB drive setup as RAIDZ. Now when thinking about it in terms of RAID5 I would expect to get (4-1)x18 worth of drive space, but DF -h shows 4x18. Is this a bug or do I not understand? 2. Once again thinking in RAID5 terms if I have 4X18GB and 12X9GB drives and I want to make a RAIDZ of all of them I would expect the 18GB to be treated at 9GB so the RAIDZ would be 16X9GB. Is

I have a question about using mixed vdev in the same zpool and what the community opinion is on the matter. Here is my setup: I have four 1TB drives and two 500GB drives. When I first setup ZFS I was under the assumption that it does not really care much on how you add devices to the pool and it assumes you are thinking things through. But when I tried to create a pool (called group) with four