3 ms·

> But as it gets wider use fact is the vast majority of systems have a single device and don't want to cut available storage in half for copies=1 I'm still pat

by brnt 3y ago

> But as it gets wider use fact is the vast majority of systems have a single device and don't want to cut available storage in half for copies=1 I'm still patiently holding out for the first (current, usable) filesystem that let's us set a parity fraction and let me use FEC to heal small errors.

xoa 3y ago
I suppose in principle you could partition a drive n ways the run RAIDZ1? Though performance would probably be mediocre and there'd be some oddities. Occurs to me know that as a practical matter perhaps raw storage will solve this for a lot of people. The pace of increase in storage/$ still seems to be steady, and in turn continues to mean more and more people trivially have their total needs exceeded. At some point may be perfectly reasonable to throw half at redundancy?
- GrilledChips 3y ago
  This is a bad idea. If you want repair, you need to either set more than one copy in ZFS (still pretty dumb) or use multiple drives in a raidz (or mirror, though raidz is more efficient). When you try to partition a drive like this (or configure ZFS to write multiple copies) you loose everything in the event that the whole drive fails. Honestly, it's a far better plan to just use multiple drives in a raidz so that whole-drive failures can be reconstructed in addition to data corruption.
  - xoa 3y ago
    Please read the thread before commenting. The scenarios we're discussing are explicitly in the context of single storage device systems getting helped by the new healing replication feature. Huge numbers of systems do not have multiple drives nor even necessarily the ability to have multiple drives. Nobody is suggesting it's optimal. I've run ZFS for 12+ years now with hundreds of systems. You don't need to tell us the obvious.
GrilledChips 3y ago
Use raidz.
throw0101c 3y ago
A one-drive Ceph ECC pool? * https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/erasure-code/ https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/erasure-cod...

by brnt 3y ago

xoa 3y ago

I suppose in principle you could partition a drive n ways the run RAIDZ1? Though performance would probably be mediocre and there'd be some oddities. Occurs to me know that as a practical matter perhaps raw storage will solve this for a lot of people. The pace of increase in storage/$ still seems to be steady, and in turn continues to mean more and more people trivially have their total needs exceeded. At some point may be perfectly reasonable to throw half at redundancy?

GrilledChips 3y ago
This is a bad idea. If you want repair, you need to either set more than one copy in ZFS (still pretty dumb) or use multiple drives in a raidz (or mirror, though raidz is more efficient). When you try to partition a drive like this (or configure ZFS to write multiple copies) you loose everything in the event that the whole drive fails. Honestly, it's a far better plan to just use multiple drives in a raidz so that whole-drive failures can be reconstructed in addition to data corruption.
- xoa 3y ago
  Please read the thread before commenting. The scenarios we're discussing are explicitly in the context of single storage device systems getting helped by the new healing replication feature. Huge numbers of systems do not have multiple drives nor even necessarily the ability to have multiple drives. Nobody is suggesting it's optimal. I've run ZFS for 12+ years now with hundreds of systems. You don't need to tell us the obvious.

GrilledChips 3y ago

Use raidz.

throw0101c 3y ago

A one-drive Ceph ECC pool? * https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/erasure-code/ https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/erasure-cod...