From: Giorgos Keramidas on
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:29:55 +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingo(a)start.no> wrote:
>> No, you should use whole disks, because ZFS can enable write caching
>> and do other nice things. And you can designate hot spares - I don't
>> know if autoreplace works in FreeBSD yet, but it is a great feature
>> of zfs pools.
>
> Ok. Do I labele the disks with glabel, or what?

That's not necessary. You can just add the raw disk to a pool.

From: Torfinn Ingolfsen on
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:29:55 +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingo(a)start.no> wrote:
>> Ok. Do I labele the disks with glabel, or what?
>
> That's not necessary. You can just add the raw disk to a pool.

Are there any advantages to using glabel on the disk first?
--
Torfinn Ingolfsen,
Norway
From: Michael Sierchio on
Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:29:55 +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingo(a)start.no>
>> wrote:
>>> Ok. Do I labele the disks with glabel, or what?
>>
>> That's not necessary. You can just add the raw disk to a pool.
>
> Are there any advantages to using glabel on the disk first?

No. In fact, it will lead to spurious errors reported by GEOM.
It's best to give zfs the raw device, but perhaps after

dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/blah count=10000

to remove any residual label, tag, etc.

The count is exaggerated, I'm tired and lazy.

Skål!

- M
From: Giorgos Keramidas on
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:14:47 +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingo(a)start.no> wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:29:55 +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingo(a)start.no> wrote:
>>> Ok. Do I labele the disks with glabel, or what?
>>
>> That's not necessary. You can just add the raw disk to a pool.
>
> Are there any advantages to using glabel on the disk first?

I'm not aware of any. It may be nice to have readable labels if you
have dozens of disks and you want to group them logically in pools even
if they may change places on the system bus. But that's all AFAIK.