Yes Quincy, thank you. I was talking about "small numbers". But I agree, it's better to warn even on higher limits

Quincy unfortunatly I don't remember the name of our other thread.. But I remember we talked a lot on this topic (metamember number vs performances vs protection vs number of drives in backend). Thank you

The reason you found is exactly the reason for pushing toward 2, 4, 8 or 16 members, depending on your backend size

However as we already said, it's simply a suggestion. Feel free to choose any metavolume members, as long as you don't reuse same physical drives

Power of twos fit well into the DA/Disk layout.

Thanks for the explaination.
My understanding too is that as long as there is no overlap on the same physical disk, number should not matter.

But I have heard exactly what you have about the using only 2, 4, 8, 16 members in the Meta and am curious to find where that is coming from. I didn't find anything in Black and White on that rule either.

The only reason that I could think of is that using those numbers maybe provides some sort of balance across the DA's but I do not have any explaination of how it would do that.

That's exactly what I had in mind.

If your Symm is using all physical disks with about the same load, you should be ok as the DA's and disks balance themselves this way.... You know what I mean. We're on the same wavelength.

I would suggest not making the member count too large, like 250 members might be too large to really be able to get good performance.

You're welcome

Thank you All for the Responses.