Rob Logan wrote: > > > which is better 8+2 or 8+1+spare? > > 8+2 is safer for the same speed > 8+2 requires alittle more math, so its slower in theory. (unlikely seen) > (4+1)*2 is 2x faster, and in theory is less likely to have wasted space > in transaction group (unlikely seen)
I keep reading that (4+1)*2 is 2x faster, but if all the data I care about is in one of the two sets, does it follow that my access to just that data is also 2x faster? - or is it more that simultaneous read/write of the entire array is (globally) 2x faster? Thanks, Kent _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
