    I would recommend to go with Larger meta members to reduce the number of meta members. This might give you a benefit of having less meta overhead. When you bind a meta to a thin pool it allocates 12 tracks/member thus consuming a little bit more space ( I am being a cheap spender). Other than that, not much of a difference.  Sunil.
I see couple of ways to do a concatenated meta here, with 357gb being closest to 350gb need.   which one is the best option and why?, i want to apply this recommended rule by our fellow members to all my size requirements, please shed some light on factors like "meta members" Vs total "size" requirement...  yes, It is a thin device environment, (17, 34, 68, 134)gb are standar tdevs available in order to use for any size of storage..  Thanks in advance,
I want to create 350 gb thin meta device, with the standard tdev sizes of (17, 
34, 68, 134)gb..