On 09 November, 2006 - Darren Dunham sent me these 0,7K bytes:
> > I don't think you'd see the same performance benefits on RAID-Z since
> > parity isn't always on the same disk. Are you seeing hot/cool disks?
>
> In addition, doesn't it always have to read all columns so that the
> parity can be
> I don't think you'd see the same performance benefits on RAID-Z since
> parity isn't always on the same disk. Are you seeing hot/cool disks?
In addition, doesn't it always have to read all columns so that the
parity can be validated?
--
Darren Dunham [
I don't think you'd see the same performance benefits on RAID-Z since
parity isn't always on the same disk. Are you seeing hot/cool disks?
Adam
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> In my opinion RAID-Z is closer to RAID-3 than to RAID-5. In RAID-3 you
> do only f
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 02:12:58AM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> Thursday, November 2, 2006, 5:12:37 PM, you wrote:
>
> RM> Hello zfs-discuss,
>
>
> RM> Server: x4500, 2x Opetron 285 (dual-core), 16GB RAM, 48x500GB
>
> RM> filebench/randomread script, filesize=256GB
>
> R
Hello Robert,
Thursday, November 2, 2006, 5:12:37 PM, you wrote:
RM> Hello zfs-discuss,
RM> Server: x4500, 2x Opetron 285 (dual-core), 16GB RAM, 48x500GB
RM> filebench/randomread script, filesize=256GB
RM> 2 disks for system, 2 disks as hot-spares, atime set to off for a
RM> pool, cache_bshif
Hi Robert,
Out of curiosity would it be possible to see the same test but hitting
the disk with write operations instead of read?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 11/2/06, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello zfs-discuss,
Server: x4500, 2x Opetron 285 (dual-core), 16GB RAM, 48x500GB
file
Wow. Thanks for the data. This is somewhat consistent with what I
predict in RAIDoptimizer.
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello zfs-discuss,
Server: x4500, 2x Opetron 285 (dual-core), 16GB RAM, 48x500GB
filebench/randomread script, filesize=256GB
Your performance numbers are better than I predi
