Jump to: navigation, search

System Administration

3,984 bytes removed, 15:24, 2 September 2015
Move hardware RAID information to hardware page.
==== Hardware RAID ====
Hardware RAID should not be used with ZFS. While ZFS will likely An explanation why can be more reliable than other filesystems found on Hardware RAID, it will not be as reliable as it would be on its own. * Hardware RAID will limit opportunities for ZFS to perform self healing on checksum failures is limited. When ZFS does RAID-Z or mirroring, a checksum failure on one disk can be corrected by treating the disk containing the sector as bad for the purpose of reconstructing the original information. This cannot be done when a RAID controller handles the redundancy unless a duplicate copy is stored by ZFS in the case that the corruption involving as metadata, the copies flag is set or the RAID array is part of a mirror/raid-z vdev within ZFS. * Sector size information is not necessarily passed correctly by hardware RAID on RAID 1 and cannot be passed correctly on RAID 5/6. [[Hardware RAID 1 is more likely to experience read-modify-write overhead from partial sector writes and #Hardware_RAID_controllers | Hardware RAID 5/6 will almost certainty suffer from partial stripe writes (i.e. the RAID write hole). Using ZFS with the disks directly will allow it to obtain the sector size information reported by the disks to avoid read-modify-write on sectors while ZFS avoids partial stripe writes on RAID-Z by desing from using copy-on-write.** It should be said that there can still be problems when a drive misreports its sector size. Such drives are typically NAND-flash based solid state drives and older SATA drives from the advanced format (4K sector size) transition before Windows XP EoL occurred. * If multiple RAID arrays are formed by the same controller and one fails, the identifiers provided by the arrays exposed to the OS might become inconsistent. e.g. If you have arrays A, B, C and D; array B dies, arrays C and D might be renamed to look like arrays B and C respectively. Giving the drives directly to the OS allows this to be avoided via naming that maps to a unique port or unique drive identifier. * Controller failures can require that the controller be replaced with the same model, or in less extreme cases, a model from the same manufacturer. Using ZFS allows any controller to be used. * IO response times will be reduced whenever the OS blocks on IO operations and the system CPU blocks on a much weaker embedded CPU used in the RAID controller. This lowers IOPS relative to what ZFS could have achieved. * If a hardware RAID controller's write cache is used, an additional failure point is introduced that can only be partially mitigated by additional complexity from adding flash to save data in power loss events. The data can still be lost if the battery fails when it is required to survive a power loss event or there is no flash and power is not restored in a timely manner. The loss of the data in the write cache can severely damage anything stored on a RAID array when many outstanding writes are cached. In addition, all writes are stored in the cache rather than just synchronous writes that require a write cache, which is inefficient, and the write cache is relatively small. ZFS allows synchronous writes to be written directly to flash, which should provide similar acceleration to hardware RAID and the ability to accelerate many more in-flight operations. * Behavior during RAID reconstruction when silent corruption damages data is undefined. There are reports of RAID 5 and 6 arrays being lost during reconstruction when the controller encounters silent corruption. ZFS' checksums allow it to avoid this situation by determining if not enough information exists to reconstruct data. In which case, the file is listed as damaged in zpool status and the system administrator has the opportunity to restore it from a backup. * The controller's firmware is an additional layer of complexity that cannot be inspected by arbitrary third parties. The ZFS source code is open source and can be inspected by anyone. Using single-drive RAID 0 arrays is not recommended for many of the reasons listed for other hardware RAID types. It is best to use a HBA instead of a RAID controller, for both performance and reliability]] page.
==== Performance ====

Navigation menu