Thanks for all the opinions everyone, my current impression is: - I do need as much RAM as I can afford (16GB look good enough for me) - SAS disks offers better iops & better MTBF than SATA. But Sata offers enough performance for me (to saturate a gig link), and its MTBF is around 100 years, which is I guess good enough for me too. If I wrap 5 or 6 SATA disks in a raidz2 that should give me "enough" protection and performance. It seems I will go with sata then for now. I hope for all practical purposes the raidz2 array of say 6 sata drives are "very well protected" for say the next 10 years! (If not please tell me) - This will mainly be used for NFS sharing. Everyone is saying it will have "bad" performance. My question is, how "bad" is bad ? Is it worse than a plain Linux server sharing NFS over 4 sata disks, using a crappy 3ware raid card with caching disabled ? coz that's what I currently have. Is it say worse that a Linux box sharing over soft raid ? - If I will be using 6 sata disks in raidz2, I understand to improve performance I can add a 15k SAS drive as a Zil device, is this correct ? Is the zil device per pool. Do I loose any flexibility by using it ? Does it become a SPOF say ? Typically how much percentage improvement should I expect to get from such a zil device ?
Thanks On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> >Ummm, no. SATA and SAS seek times are not even in the same universe.= >> > They >> >most definitely do not use the same mechanics inside. Whoever told y= >> >ou that >> >rubbish is an outright liar. >> >> >> Which particular disks are you guys talking about? >> >> I;m thinking you guys are talking about the same 3.5" w/ the same RPM, >> right? We're not comparing 10K/2.5 SAS drives agains 7.2K/3.5 SATA >> devices, are we? >> >> Casper >> >> > I'm talking about 10k and 15k SAS drives, which is what the OP was talking > about from the get-go. Apparently this is yet another case of subsequent > posters completely ignoring the topic and taking us off on tangents that > have nothing to do with the OP's problem. > > --Tm > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
