<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com" target="_blank">gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">2016-11-05 12:06 GMT+01:00 Lindsay Mathieson <<a href="mailto:lindsay.mathieson@gmail.com">lindsay.mathieson@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
> Yah, I get that. For me willing to risk loosing the entire gluster node and<br>
> having to resync it, I see the odds as pretty low vs just losing one disk in<br>
> the RAID10 set and resilvering it locally.<br>
<br>
I don't see any advantage doing a single RAIDz10, only drawbacks.<br>
With multiple RAIDZ1 you get the same space, same features and same<br>
performances as a single RAIDZ10 but much more availability and safety<br>
for your data.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The only thing you gain with raidz1 I think is maybe more usable space. Performance in general will not be as good, and whether the vdev is mirrored or z1 neither can survive 2 drives failing. In most cases the z10 will rebuild faster with less impact during rebuild. If you are already using gluster 3 node replicate as VM practices suggest then you are already pretty well protected if you lose the wrong 2 drives as well.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>