Hello Peter,
Thursday, January 11, 2007, 1:08:38 AM, you wrote:
>> It's just a common sense advise - for many users keeping raidz groups
>> below 9 disks should give good enough performance. However if someone
>> creates raidz group of 48 disks he/she probable expects also
>> performance and in g
Hi Robert,
I read the following section from
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/when_to_and_not_to as indicating
random writes to a RAID-Z had the performance of a single disk
regardless of the group size:
Effectively, as a first approximation, an N-disk RAID-Z group will
behave as a single
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/10/2007 05:16:33 PM:
> Hello Jason,
>
> Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 10:54:29 PM, you wrote:
>
> JJWW> Hi Kyle,
>
> JJWW> I think there was a lot of talk about this behavior on the RAIDZ2
vs.
> JJWW> RAID-10 thread. My understanding from that discussion was that
Hello Jason,
Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 10:54:29 PM, you wrote:
JJWW> Hi Kyle,
JJWW> I think there was a lot of talk about this behavior on the RAIDZ2 vs.
JJWW> RAID-10 thread. My understanding from that discussion was that every
JJWW> write stripes the block across all disks on a RAIDZ/Z2 gro
Hello Kyle,
Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 5:33:12 PM, you wrote:
KM> Remember though that it's been mathematically figured that the
KM> disadvantages to RaidZ start to show up after 9 or 10 drives. (That's
Well, nothing like this was proved and definitely not mathematically.
It's just a common
