Comment

tvcvt@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

I’m sure you already know this, but do note that with Z2 compared to mirrors, you should expect a decrease in performance and an increase in rebuild times in the event of a drive failure. Not saying don’t do it, but make sure the perceived benefits are worth the trade offs.

Here’s some more info on the topic: jrs-s.net/…/zfs-you-should-use-mirror-vdevs-not-r….

source

Sort:hotnew top

a_fancy_kiwi@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Yeah I’m not excited about the write and rebuild times being slower but the read times should still be pretty good. Considering I don’t have any more space for drives in my server and I don’t know how crazy hdd drive prices will get in the next 12 months, the guaranteed 2 drive failure resiliency is more important to me at the moment.

source
- eleitl@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Make sure you scrub weekly. The probability of a second device failure is higher than you think, since it can be triggered by resilvering. I would also make sure you have a spare at hand.
  
  source
non_burglar@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
That’s still true, but performance has changed a lot since Jim Salter wrote that. There was a time When 2x mirrored vdevs (the equivalent to raid 10) would have been preferable to raidz2, but performance of both ZFS and disks themselves has improved enough that there wouldn’t be much of a difference in performance between these two in a home lab.

Personally, I agree with you in that mirrors are preferable, mostly because I don’t really need high availability as much as I want an easier time restoring if a disk fails.

source