> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg41998.html > > Slabs don't matter. So the rest of this argument is moot.
Tell it to Erik. He might want to know. Or maybe he knows better than you. > 2. Each slab is spread across many disks, so the average seek time to > fetch > the slab approaches the maximum seek time of a single disk. That means > an > average 2x longer than average seek time. > > nope. Anything intelligent to add? Or just "nope" > Seeks are usually quite small compared to the rotational delay, due to > the way data is written. I'm using the term "seek time" to reference from time the drive receives an instruction, to the time it actually is able to read/write the requested data. In drive spec sheets, this is often referred to as "seek time" so I don't think I'm misusing the term, and it includes the rotational delay. > 4. Guess what happens if you have 2 or 3 failed disks in your raidz3, > and > they're trying to resilver at the same time. Does the system ignore > subsequently failed disks and concentrate on restoring a single disk > quickly? > > No, of course. > > > Or does the system try to resilver them all simultaneously and > therefore double or triple the time before any one disk is fully > resilvered? > > Yes, of course. Are those supposed to be real answers? Or are you mocking me? It sounds like mocking. If you don't mind, please try to stick with productive conversation. I'm just skipping the rest of your reply from here down, because I'm considering it hostile and unnecessary to read or reply further. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
