On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Deano wrote: > > The question therefore is, is there room in the software implementation to > achieve performance and reliability numbers similar to expensive drives > whilst using relative cheap drives?
For some definition of "similar," yes. But using relatively cheap drives does not mean the overall system cost will be cheap. For example, $250 will buy 8.6K random IOPS @ 4KB in an SSD[1], but to do that with "cheap disks" might require eighty 7,200 rpm SATA disks. > ZFS is good but IMHO easy to see how it can be improved to better meet this > situation, I can’t currently say when this line of thinking and code will > move from research to production level use (tho I have a pretty good idea ;) > ) but I wouldn’t bet on the status quo lasting much longer. In some ways the > removal of OpenSolaris may actually be a good thing, as its catalyized a > number of developers from the view that zfs is Oracle led, to thinking “what > can we do with zfs code as a base”? There are more people outside of Oracle developing for ZFS than inside Oracle. This has been true for some time now. > Ffor example how about sticking a cheap 80GiB commodity SSD in the storage > case. When a resilver or defrag is required, use it as a scratch space to > give you a block of fast IOPs storage space to accelerate the slow parts. > When its done secure erase and power it down, ready for the next time a > resilver needs to happen. The hardware is available, just needs someone to > write the software… In general, SSDs will not speed resilver unless the resilvering disk is an SSD. [1] http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/products/nand/feature/index.htm -- richard
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
