As with all things in life, "It Depends."  First, are you talking about a one-time replication (migration) or are you talking a regular replication?  I'm assuming you're talking about regular replication, as one-time replications will only perform as well as they'll perform.  When you create a checkpoint for replication, the initial SavVol will be a minimum of 20GB.  So, to replicate your 10TB filesystem, you'll immediate use 20GB.  However, if you're replicating (5) 2TB filesystems, each filesystem has its own replication session, hence, it's own 20GB SavVol.  Now, your total initial SavVol usage is 100GB (5 x 20GB).  So to save initial space, it appears than replicating one large filesystem initially uses less SavVol space than multiple, smaller SavVols.  In terms of performance, however, the larger the filesystem, the longer it usually takes to create a checkpoint.  Logic follows that a 1TB checkpoint is faster to create than a 10TB checkpoint.  Also keep in mind that larger checkpoints take longer to be checked/mounted following a failover or reboot (there are several threads about reboot performance being impacted by many, large checkpoints - take a look at them).  All things being equal (which they never are!), you might find replicating several small filesystems will probably perform acceptably, but may use more SavVol space than replicating a single, large filesystem.  But after the initial replication has occured, you'll find that replicating the changes will take the same, regardless of the size of the filesystem.  If you have the free space, you might try a local replication to estimate how much space you'd use up for the replication process.  Thanks!  Karl
replicate 1 big file system of 10 teras or replicate 5 file system of 2 teras each one,  how the space of savvol and checkpoint is estimated?
NS120 - for replicator to get performance and space what is better?