| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 07:29:08PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@×××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> |
| 5 |
> >> IMO the cost savings for parity RAID trumps everything unless money |
| 6 |
> >> just isn't a factor. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Cost saving compared to what? In my four-bay-scenario, mirror and raidz2 |
| 9 |
> > yield the same available space (I hope so). |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Sure, if you only have 4 drives and run raid6/z2 then it is no more |
| 13 |
> efficient than mirroring. That said, it does provide more security |
| 14 |
> because raidz2 can tolerate the failure of any two disks, while |
| 15 |
> 2xraid1 or raid10 can tolerate only half of the combinations of two |
| 16 |
> disks. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Ooooh, I just came up with another good reason for raidz over mirror: |
| 20 |
I don't encrypt my drives because it doesn't hold sensitive stuff. (AFAIK |
| 21 |
native ZFS encryption is available in Oracle ZFS, so it might eventually |
| 22 |
come to the Linux world). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So in case I ever need to send in a drive for repair/replacement, noone can |
| 25 |
read from it (or only in tiny bits'n'pieces from a hexdump), because each |
| 26 |
disk contains a mix of data and parity blocks. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think I'm finally sold. :) |
| 29 |
And with that, good night. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ |
| 33 |
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
“I think Leopard is a much better system [than Windows Vista] … but OS X in |
| 36 |
some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is |
| 37 |
complete and utter crap, which is scary.” – Linus Torvalds |
Archives