On 24/06/2010 20:52, Arne Jansen wrote:
Ross Walker wrote:
Raidz is definitely made for sequential IO patterns not random. To
get good random IO with raidz you need a zpool with X raidz vdevs
where X = desired IOPS/IOPS of single drive.
I have seen statements like this repeated several tim
Ross Walker wrote:
Raidz is definitely made for sequential IO patterns not random. To get good
random IO with raidz you need a zpool with X raidz vdevs where X = desired
IOPS/IOPS of single drive.
I have seen statements like this repeated several times, though
I haven't been able to find an
Hey Robert,
I've filed a bug to track this issue. We'll try to reproduce the problem and
evaluate the cause. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Adam
On Jun 24, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> On 23/06/2010 18:50, Adam Leventhal wrote:
>>> Does it mean that for dataset used
On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> On 24/06/2010 14:32, Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 23/06/2010 18:50, Adam Leventhal wrote:
>>>
> Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar environment
On 24/06/2010 15:54, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Ross Walker wrote:
Raidz is definitely made for sequential IO patterns not random. To
get good random IO with raidz you need a zpool with X raidz vdevs
where X = desired IOPS/IOPS of single drive.
Remarkably, I have yet to see
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Ross Walker wrote:
Raidz is definitely made for sequential IO patterns not random. To
get good random IO with raidz you need a zpool with X raidz vdevs
where X = desired IOPS/IOPS of single drive.
Remarkably, I have yet to see mention of someone testing a raidz which
is
On 24/06/2010 14:32, Ross Walker wrote:
On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 23/06/2010 18:50, Adam Leventhal wrote:
Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar environments where
basically all blocks have fixed size and there is no other data al
On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> On 23/06/2010 18:50, Adam Leventhal wrote:
>>> Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar environments
>>> where basically all blocks have fixed size and there is no other data all
>>> parity information will end-up on one
On 23/06/2010 19:29, Ross Walker wrote:
On Jun 23, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
128GB.
Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar environments where
basically all blocks have fixed size and there is no other data all parity
information will end-up on one (
On 23/06/2010 18:50, Adam Leventhal wrote:
Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar environments where
basically all blocks have fixed size and there is no other data all parity
information will end-up on one (z1) or two (z2) specific disks?
No. There are always small
On Jun 23, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>
> 128GB.
>
> Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar environments
> where basically all blocks have fixed size and there is no other data all
> parity information will end-up on one (z1) or two (z2) specific disks?
W
> Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar environments
> where basically all blocks have fixed size and there is no other data all
> parity information will end-up on one (z1) or two (z2) specific disks?
No. There are always smaller writes to metadata that will distribute pa
128GB.
Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar
environments where basically all blocks have fixed size and there is no
other data all parity information will end-up on one (z1) or two (z2)
specific disks?
On 23/06/2010 17:51, Adam Leventhal wrote:
Hey Robert,
How bi
Hey Robert,
How big of a file are you making? RAID-Z does not explicitly do the parity
distribution that RAID-5 does. Instead, it relies on non-uniform stripe widths
to distribute IOPS.
Adam
On Jun 18, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> zpool create test raidz c0t0d0 c1t0
Reaching into the dusty regions of my brain, I seem to recall that since RAIDz
does not work like a traditional RAID 5, particularly because of variably sized
stripes, that the data may not hit all of the disks, but it will always be
redundant.
I apologize for not having a reference for this a
Hi,
zpool create test raidz c0t0d0 c1t0d0 c2t0d0 c3t0d0 \
raidz c0t1d0 c1t1d0 c2t1d0 c3t1d0 \
raidz c0t2d0 c1t2d0 c2t2d0 c3t2d0 \
raidz c0t3d0 c1t3d0 c2t3d0 c3t3d0 \
[...]
raidz c0t10d0 c1t10d0 c2t10d0 c3t1
16 matches
Mail list logo
