Further to my original post, I have a new (desktop, I know ... but I am
on a tight budget) Intel MB with an i5-3750 CPU and 32 GB of desktop
RAM. Booting the 151a7 live DVD shows that it thinks it's a 32 bit
system (huh?). It regognises almost all the devices when I run the
device manager, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/04/13 02:10, Jay Heyl wrote:
> Not to get into bickering about semantics, but I asked, "Or am I
> wrong about reads being issued in parallel to all the mirrors in
> the array?"
Each read is issued only to a (lets say, "random") disk in the mirro
On 2013-04-17 02:10, Jay Heyl wrote:
Not to get into bickering about semantics, but I asked, "Or am I wrong
about reads being issued in parallel to all the mirrors in the array?", to
which you replied, "Yes, in normal case... this assumption is wrong... but
reads should be in parallel." (Ellipses
> From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk [mailto:m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com]
>
> SSD units are very vulnerable to power cuts during work up to complete
> failure which they can not be used any more to complete loss of data .
If there are any junky drives out there that fail so dramatically, those are
junky an
For the context of ZPL, easy answer below :-) ...
On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Timothy Coalson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
>
>> On 2013-04-16 23:56, Jay Heyl wrote:
>>
>>> result in more devices being hit for both read and write. Or am I wrong
>>> about reads b
> From: Jay Heyl [mailto:j...@frelled.us]
>
> > So I'm just assuming you're going to build a pool out of SSD's, mirrored,
> > perhaps even 3-way mirrors. No cache/log devices. All the ram you can fit
> > into the system.
>
> What would be the logic behind mirrored SSD arrays? With spinning plat
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2013-04-16 23:56, Jay Heyl wrote:
>
>> result in more devices being hit for both read and write. Or am I wrong
>> about reads being issued in parallel to all the mirrors in the array?
>>
>
> Yes, in normal case (not scrubbing which makes a p
> From: Sašo Kiselkov [mailto:skiselkov...@gmail.com]
>
> If you are IOPS constrained, then yes, raid-zn will be slower, simply
> because any read needs to hit all data drives in the stripe.
Saso, I would expect you to know the answer to this question, probably:
I have heard that raidz is more s
On 04/17/2013 12:08 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
> clarification below...
>
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>
>> On 04/16/2013 11:37 PM, Timothy Coalson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sašo Kiselkov
>>> wrote:
>>>
If you are IOPS constrained, then yes, raid-zn
On 2013-04-17 01:12, Timothy Coalson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
On 2013-04-16 23:56, Jay Heyl wrote:
result in more devices being hit for both read and write. Or am I wrong
about reads being issued in parallel to all the mirrors in the array?
Yes, in normal
On 2013-04-16 23:37, Timothy Coalson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
If you are IOPS constrained, then yes, raid-zn will be slower, simply
because any read needs to hit all data drives in the stripe. This is
even worse on writes if the raidz has bad geometry (number
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2013-04-16 23:56, Jay Heyl wrote:
>
>> result in more devices being hit for both read and write. Or am I wrong
>> about reads being issued in parallel to all the mirrors in the array?
>>
>
> Yes, in normal case (not scrubbing which makes a p
On 2013-04-16 23:56, Jay Heyl wrote:
result in more devices being hit for both read and write. Or am I wrong
about reads being issued in parallel to all the mirrors in the array?
Yes, in normal case (not scrubbing which makes a point of reading
everything) this assumption is wrong. Writes do hi
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
SATA and SAS are dedicated point-to-point interfaces so there is no
additive bottleneck with more drives as long as the devices are directly
connected.
Not true. Modern flash storage is quite capable of saturating a 6 Gbps
SATA link. SAS has an advanta
clarification below...
On Apr 16, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 11:37 PM, Timothy Coalson wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>>
>>> If you are IOPS constrained, then yes, raid-zn will be slower, simply
>>> because any read needs to hit all d
ZFS datablocks are also a power of two what means, that if you have
1,2,4,8,16,32,.. datadisks, every write is evenly spread over all disks.
If you add one disk ex from 8 to 9 datadisks, any one disk is not used on a
read/write.
Does that means, 9 datadisks are slower than 8 disks?
No, 9 disks
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 11:37 PM, Timothy Coalson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sašo Kiselkov >wrote:
> >
> >> If you are IOPS constrained, then yes, raid-zn will be slower, simply
> >> because any read needs to hit all data drives in th
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Timothy Coalson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Jay Heyl wrote:
>
> > My question about the rationale behind the suggestion of mirrored SSD
> > arrays was really meant to be more in relation to the question from the
> OP.
> > I don't see how mirrored ar
On 04/16/2013 11:37 PM, Timothy Coalson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>
>> If you are IOPS constrained, then yes, raid-zn will be slower, simply
>> because any read needs to hit all data drives in the stripe. This is
>> even worse on writes if the raidz has bad geo
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
> If you are IOPS constrained, then yes, raid-zn will be slower, simply
> because any read needs to hit all data drives in the stripe. This is
> even worse on writes if the raidz has bad geometry (number of data
> drives isn't a power of 2).
>
On 04/16/2013 11:25 PM, Timothy Coalson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Jay Heyl wrote:
>
>> My question about the rationale behind the suggestion of mirrored SSD
>> arrays was really meant to be more in relation to the question from the OP.
>> I don't see how mirrored arrays of SSDs wo
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Jay Heyl wrote:
> My question about the rationale behind the suggestion of mirrored SSD
> arrays was really meant to be more in relation to the question from the OP.
> I don't see how mirrored arrays of SSDs would be effective in his
> situation.
>
There is anoth
On 04/16/2013 10:57 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Jay Heyl wrote:
>>
>> It's actually not all that difficult to saturate a 6Gb/s pathway with ZFS
>> when there are multiple storage devices on the other end of that path. No
>> single HDD today is going to come close to needing th
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Jay Heyl wrote:
It's actually not all that difficult to saturate a 6Gb/s pathway with ZFS
when there are multiple storage devices on the other end of that path. No
single HDD today is going to come close to needing that full 6Gb/s, but put
four or five of them hanging off th
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> On 2013-04-16 20:30, Jay Heyl wrote:
>
>> What would be the logic behind mirrored SSD arrays? With spinning platters
>> the mirrors improve performance by allowing the fastest of the mirrors to
>> respond to a particular command to be the one
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
I am not an expert of this subject , but with respect to my readings in
some e-mails in different mailing lists and from some relevant pages in
Wikipedia about SSD drives , the following points are mentioned about SSD
disadvantages ( even for "Enterprise" labeled driv
On 2013-04-16 19:17, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
I am not an expert of this subject , but with respect to my readings in
some e-mails in different mailing lists and from some relevant pages in
Wikipedia about SSD drives , the following points are mentioned about SSD
disadvantages ( even for "Ent
On 2013-04-16 20:30, Jay Heyl wrote:
What would be the logic behind mirrored SSD arrays? With spinning platters
the mirrors improve performance by allowing the fastest of the mirrors to
respond to a particular command to be the one that defines throughput. With
Well, to think up a rationale: it
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (openindiana) <
openindi...@nedharvey.com> wrote:
>
> So I'm just assuming you're going to build a pool out of SSD's, mirrored,
> perhaps even 3-way mirrors. No cache/log devices. All the ram you can fit
> into the system.
What would be the lo
I am not an expert of this subject , but with respect to my readings in
some e-mails in different mailing lists and from some relevant pages in
Wikipedia about SSD drives , the following points are mentioned about SSD
disadvantages ( even for "Enterprise" labeled drives ) :
SSD units are very vul
some of these points are a bit dated. Allow me to make some updates. I'm sure
that you are aware that most 10gig switches these days are cut through and not
store and forward. That's Arista, HP, Dell Force10, Mellanox, and IBM/Blade.
Cisco has a mix of things, but they aren't really in the low l
> From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
>
> It would be difficult to believe that 10Gbit Ethernet offers better
> bandwidth than 56Gbit Infiniband (the current offering). The swiching
> model is quite similar. The main reason why IB offers better latency
> is a better HBA h
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
I tried as well with the tar.bz2 package, and it is the same crash and core
dump.
The problem has been fixed and the reason was a compiler error. I just wonder
why they keep compiling with SolarisStudio?
It avoids needing to depend on GCC ru
> I tried as well with the tar.bz2 package, and it is the same crash and core
> dump.
The problem has been fixed and the reason was a compiler error. I just wonder
why they keep compiling with SolarisStudio?
A.S.
--
Apostolos Syropoulos
Xanthi, Greece
__
34 matches
Mail list logo
