From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-150741-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6221381F3
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:19:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17662E0960;
	Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:18:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail2.viabit.com (mail2.viabit.com [65.246.80.16])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F653E0899
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:18:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.17.29.6] (vpn1.metro-data.com [65.213.236.242])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail2.viabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3cfSd70qQNz1hgK
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=orlitzky.com; s=mail2;
	t=1379431099; bh=MuTVoxOti3u23uv2XX4dgnYiSLQUepNiJkLX4eUpFM0=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=CPAeU0djjAsJsQB0s4K3sAo3awhcWRijX2kCp5kFagrmOEf6vngcov51Zy9k+glqF
	 6r/wTOxeLPS264cYKM9FX4bYxPgzy0R4hDnf6GlabkgrZvgseH9XvycQf9cXTIUix6
	 +rGjdrGGlTXzRxNP9ZiHEdeYpD42ldWC8lQsjtyE=
Message-ID: <523872B7.5040302@orlitzky.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:18:15 -0400
From: Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130909 Thunderbird/17.0.8
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS
References: <CAN0CFw1nGVZxJGGsq4TZidEPuyLDkcD0oYRDOOfNzFFM2vQ-tg@mail.gmail.com> <52382CA4.6090407@libertytrek.org> <CAN0CFw1jTNV4DZ21gTLHo9wCe=6LTkpXU92hpzhiw_Za3L=Ksw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN0CFw1jTNV4DZ21gTLHo9wCe=6LTkpXU92hpzhiw_Za3L=Ksw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: dde4af31-a2b6-4b81-ba17-ec8c3381a2b2
X-Archives-Hash: e0a4d4d6081b2f7323205de090f6e883

On 09/17/2013 09:21 AM, Grant wrote:
>>> It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
>>> 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
>>
>> ?? RAID 10 simply requires an even number of drives with a minimum of 4.
> 
> OK, there seems to be some disagreement on this.  Michael?
> 

Any controller that claims RAID10 on a server with 6 drive bays should
be able to put all six drives in an array. But you'll get a three-way
stripe (better performance) instead of a three-way mirror (better fault
tolerance).

So,

  A B C
  A B C

and not,

  A B
  A B
  A B

The former gives you more space but slightly less fault tolerance than
four drives with a hot spare.