Hello Rob Cohen and List,
On August, 06 2011, 17:32 <Rob Cohen> wrote in [1]:
> In this case, RAIDZ is at least 8x slower to resilver (assuming CPU
> and writing happen in parallel). In the mean time, performance for
> the array is severely degraded for RAIDZ, but not for mirrors.
> Aside from resilvering, for many workloads, I have seen over 10x
> (!) better performance from mirrors.
Horrible.
My little pool needs for scrubbing more than 8 hours with no workload.
The pool has 6 Hitachi 2 TB
# zpool status archepool
pool: archepool
state: ONLINE
scan: scrub repaired 0 in 8h14m with 0 errors on Sun Jul 31 19:14:47 2011
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
archepool ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t50024E9003CE0317d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t50024E9003CF7685d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t50024E9003CE031Bd0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t50024E9003CE0368d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-2 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t5000CCA369CA262Bd0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t5000CCA369CBF60Cd0 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
How much time needs the thread opener with his config?
> Technical Specs:
> 216x 3TB 7k3000 HDDs
> 24x 9 drive RAIDZ3
I suggest resilver need weeks and the chance that a second or
third HD crashs in that time is high. Murphy’s Law
--
Best Regards
Alexander
August, 06 2011
........
[1] mid:1688088365.31312644757091.JavaMail.Twebapp@sf-app1
........
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
