[zfs-discuss] Can this be done?

[Michael Shadle]

Well this is for a home storage array for my dvds and such. If I have  
to turn it off to swap a failed disk it's fine. It does not need to be  
highly available and I do not need extreme performance like a database  
for example. 45mb/sec would even be acceptable.

On Mar 28, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us 
 > wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
>> if i went raidz2 i'd want the entire 14 disk array in it i think.
>>
>> i'd rather not do a raidz2 with less than 100% of the disks and  
>> then a
>> second raidz1 (or 2) because i'd wind up losing much more disk space.
>> essentially, i am willing to give up 2 of 14 disks (roughly of  
>> course)
>> to parity.
>
> Hopefully you consider all of the costs before making this sort of  
> decision.  If you are a lousy tipper you can't expect very good  
> service the next time you come to visit. :-)
>
> If 14 disks cost a "lot", then you should carefully balance the cost  
> of the "wasted" disk against the cost of lost performance or the  
> cost of lost availability.  In many business environments, the  
> potential for lost availability more than justifies purchasing more  
> "wasted" disk.  In many business environments, the potential for  
> lousy performance more than justifies purchasing more "wasted"  
> disk.  Any good businessman should be able to specify a "dollars per  
> hour" cost to the business if the storage is not available, or  
> unable to provide sufficient performance to meet business needs.
>
> Bob
> --
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/