Anton B. Rang wrote:
This is a difference from RAID-5. In RAID-5, small reads are more efficient than
mirroring because there are more disk spindles available, and a small read
usually uses only one. Small writes are less efficient than mirroring in RAID-5
because they require a pre-read phase
On Sep 30, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Torrey McMahon wrote:What about the case of an iSCSI LUN? Does this change? I get that while local to the system a read from a mirror versus a RAIDZ pool is desirable, but would an IP network introduce enough latency that the difference is negligible? And wouldn't I
Randy Bias wrote:
On Sep 29, 2006, at 6:24 AM, Roch wrote:
Keith Clay writes:
On Sep 29, 2006, at 2:41 AM, Roch wrote:
IMO, RAIDZn should perform admirably on the write loads.
The random reads aspects is more limited. The simple rule of
thumb is to consider that a RAIDZ group will deliver ran
Opteron 280 or 275 with blowfish cipher does 33MB/s, default (DES?) cipher does
25MB/s.
- Luke
Msg is shrt cuz m on ma treo
-Original Message-
From: Anantha N. Srirama [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 12:34 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: zfs-discuss@op
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
You're most certainly are hitting the SSH limitation. Note that
SSH/SCP sessions are single threaded and won't utilize all of the
system resources even if they are available.
You may want to try 'ssh -c blowfish' to use the (faster) blowfish
encryption algorithm rathe
You're most certainly are hitting the SSH limitation. Note that SSH/SCP
sessions are single threaded and won't utilize all of the system resources even
if they are available.
Around 4 months back I was doing some testing between 2 fully configured T2000s
connected using crossover cables and fig
