On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:39:48PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > This sounds like an initial 'silver' rather than a 'resilver'.
Yes, in particular it will be entirely seqential. ZFS resilver is in txg order and involves seeking. > What I am interested in is the answer to these sort of questions: > > o Does a mirror device resilver faster than raidz? > > o Does a mirror device in a triple mirror resilver faster than a > two-device mirror? > > o Does a raidz2 with 9 disks resilver faster or slower than one with > 6 disks? and, if we're wishing for comprehensive analysis: o What is the impact on concurrent IO benchmark loads, for each of the above. > The answer to these questions could vary depending on how well the pool > has been "aged" and if it has been used for a while close to 100% full. Indeed, which makes it even harder to compare results from different cases and test sources. To get usable relative-to-each-other results, one needs to compare idealised test cases with repeatable loads. This is weeks of work, at least, and can be fun to specualte about up front but rapidly gets very tiresome. -- Dan.
pgp2nipoqXa1P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
