gm_sjo wrote: > Are you not infact losing performance by reducing the > amount of spindles used for a given pool?
This depends. Usually, RAIDZ1/2 isn't a good performancer when it comes to random access read I/O, for instance. If I wanted to scale performance by adding spindles, I would use mirrors (RAID 10). If you want to scale filesystem sizes, RAIDZ is your friend. I once had the problem that I needed a high random I/O performance and at least a 11 TB large filesystem on a X4500. Mirroring was out of the question (not enough disk space left), and RAIDZ gave me only about 25% of the performance of the existing Linux ext2 boxes I had to compete with. But in the end, striping 13 RAIDZ sets of 3 drives each + 1 hot spare delivered acceptable results in both categories. But it took me a lot of benchmarks to get there. -- Ralf Ramge Senior Solaris Administrator, SCNA, SCSA Tel. +49-721-91374-3963 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://web.de/ 1&1 Internet AG Brauerstraße 48 76135 Karlsruhe Amtsgericht Montabaur HRB 6484 Vorstand: Henning Ahlert, Ralph Dommermuth, Matthias Ehrlich, Thomas Gottschlich, Matthias Greve, Robert Hoffmann, Markus Huhn, Oliver Mauss, Achim Weiss Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Michael Scheeren _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
