2016-11-05 9:52 GMT+01:00 Lindsay Mathieson <lindsay.mathieson@xxxxxxxxx>: > pool: tank > config: > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > tank ONLINE 0 0 0 > mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ata-WDC_WD6000HLHX-01JJPV0_WD-WX41E81ZU901 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > ata-WDC_WD6000HLHX-01JJPV0_WD-WX81E81AFWJ4 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ata-WDC_WD6000HLHX-01JJPV0_WD-WX41E81ZV240 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > ata-WDC_WD6000HLHX-01JJPV0_WD-WX41E81ZV027 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > mirror-2 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ata-WDC_WD6000HLHX-01JJPV0_WD-WX41E81ZU903 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > ata-WDC_WD6000HLHX-01JJPV0_WD-WXB1E81EFFT2 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > mirror-4 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ata-WDC_WD30EFRX-68EUZN0_WD-WCC4N1UFDFKA ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > ata-WDC_WD30EFRX-68EUZN0_WD-WCC4N7ZKLK52 ONLINE 0 0 > 0 > logs > ata-KINGSTON_SHSS37A240G_50026B7267031966-part1 ONLINE 0 > 0 0 > cache > ata-KINGSTON_SHSS37A240G_50026B7267031966-part2 ONLINE 0 > 0 0 Which is the advantage by using a single RAID-10 (thus 1 brick per server) and not 1 brick per each RAID1 volume? In the first case, ZFS is aggregating volumes, in the second, gluster is aggregating volumes. With gluster, healing should be faster in case of failure. If you loose a mirror, you have to resilver the whole RAID-10 from network, by using ZFS and RAID-10 With gluster, if you loose a mirror, you have to heal only that one. _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
