Dear Bill, Peter, Richard, and Saso. Thanks for the great comments.
Now, changing to reverse gear, isn't it more likely to loose data by having a pool that spans across mutiple HBAs than if you connect all drives to a single HBA? I mean, unless you make sure that there are never any more drives served by one HBA alone (single-ported SATA drives) in a leaf VDEV than can be tolerated by the provided redundancy, a VDEV in the pool could become unavailable upon HBA failure, ultimately leading to loss of the whole pool? That is, given that the failure of the HBA would not lead to an immediate crash of the host which would make it identical to the previous scenario. I'd claim that such failures are probably not handled, and so the consequences are not predictable. Similar scenarios are feasible if one disk shelf dies completely, and the pool spans across more than one. I have personally seen a single vdev in a pool to go down by drive incompatibility, and when I had to decide to give up the pool or try recovery, I got the impression from iostat that there probably had been transactions to the remaining VDEVs, making the recovery forensics. Not sure if this was indeed accurate, but then I was jumping to the conclusion that an immediate, hard crash would have been preferable over a slow melt-down. Prejudice or fact?
Best regards, Sebastian _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
