Robert Milkowski writes: > Hello Roch, > > Thursday, August 17, 2006, 11:08:37 AM, you wrote: > R> My general principles are: > > R> If you can, to improve you 'Availability' metrics, > R> let ZFS handle one level of redundancy; > > R> For Random Read performance prefer mirrors over > R> raid-z. If you use raid-z, group together a smallish > R> number of volumes. > > R> setup volumes that correspond to small number of > R> drives (smallest you can bear) with a volume > R> interlace that is in the [1M-4M] range. > > Why that big interlace? With lot of small reads it could actually > introduce large overhead, right? I can understand something like > 960KB, but 4M? >
I also think we should be fine with 1M. Not sure what overhead we're talking here. Did you mean large skew ? During a pool synch, at least, one of interest, we expect to have lots of data to synch, even if it's just a 1GB, 4M interlace still spreads to 256 disks. -r _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
