[illumos-Discuss] md aka svm aka lvm

[Nikola M]

Haudy Kazemi wrote:
>>>     So the net effect to me isn't that great. I've always stayed
>>> away from both RAID0 and Concatenation. While it does decrease the
>>> flexibility of space usage, If I've had multiple disks and didn't
>>> want to have redundancy and didn't need the the performance boost,
>>> I've always just partitioned and made a FS on each disk and mounted
>>> them on the system. That's really the only way to salvage one disks
>>> worth of data when the other one fails. It's the only way to know
>>> what files are on which disk, and ensure that each file is
>>> completely on one disk.
> I agree.  That is a strategy I myself have used for storing
> replaceable or low value data where losing one disk's worth of data
> has a tolerable time/hassle/annoyance factor, but replacing many
> disk's worth would have an unacceptable tolerable
> time/hassle/annoyance factor.
If I might just ask a related question not quite on topic and put some
un-educated remarks:

This sound to me that, for the purpose of maintaining replaceble/low
value data it is better to use this strategy then just putting files
directly on ZFS rpool.
As I understood from discussion in previous case One can possibly count
of getting back Some of the files but only when mounting every disk on
separate FS he can definately count to mount surviving data as a whole.

What do you think it is the case, with unimportant data that is put on
ZFS rpool without protection?
What might be chances to also retrieve some of them in case of disk
failure (and in function of number of disks in rpool)?
I was thinking of putting non importand data directly on ZFS rpool while
important ones are in raidzX/mirrored on same disks etc.