On May 29, 2007, at 2:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no
performance
degradation at all.
All filesystems impose some overhead compared to the rate of raw disk
I/O. It's going to be hard to store data on a disk unless some
kind of
Point one, the comments that Eric made do not give the complete picture.
All the tests that Eric's referring to were done through ZFS filesystem.
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no performance
degradation at all. Second point, it does not take any additional
time in
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no performance
degradation at all.
All filesystems impose some overhead compared to the rate of raw disk
I/O. It's going to be hard to store data on a disk unless some kind of
filesystem is used. All the tests that Eric and I have
On May 29, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Lida Horn wrote:
Point one, the comments that Eric made do not give the complete
picture.
All the tests that Eric's referring to were done through ZFS
filesystem.
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no
performance
degradation at all.
Roch Bourbonnais wrote:
Le 29 mai 07 à 22:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no
performance
degradation at all.
All filesystems impose some overhead compared to the rate of raw disk
I/O. It's going to be hard to store data on a disk
