> When it's not cached, of course the read time was equal to the > original > write time. When it's cached, it goes 4x faster. Perhaps this is only > because I'm testing on a machine that has super fast storage... 11 > striped > SAS disks yielding 8Gbit/sec as compared to all-RAM which yielded > 31.2Gbit/sec. It seems in this case, RAM is only 4x faster than the > storage > itself... But I would have expected a couple orders of magnitude... So > perhaps my expectations are off, or the ARC itself simply incurs > overhead. > Either way, dedup is not to blame for obtaining merely 2x or 4x > performance > gain over the non-dedup equivalent.
Could you test with some SSD SLOGs and see how well or bad the system performs? Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
