People act like resilvers on parity are vastly different than on mirrored. They are not, its just reads and writes, granted in a different pattern. My RAIDZ2 re

People act like resilvers on parity are vastly different than on mirrored. They are not, its just reads and writes, granted in a different pattern. My RAIDZ2 resilvers at about what I expect the old drives in it to write at, ~100MB/sec. In a mirrored setup it all depends on the one drive doing the reading to survive the process. The drive that is most likely the same age as the one that just failed. A resilver isnt more likely to kill an existing drive than a scrub. And the general advice is to do those semi regularly. A blanket statement equating parity RAID to "more risky" is absurd and leads to people thinking they need a massive pool of mirrors just for their home files. ZFS has numerous options to prioritize different IO higher or lower (priority to resilvers or end user data).