ave seen zero negative performance
impact. In fact, I am unable to really make my ZFS fileservers notice
they are in use CPU-wise.
The added benefit is that zfs send/recv is already compressed,
removing the need for a costly intermediate single-threaded compressor
of any kind.
--Randy
Ra
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
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 random
read IOPS with
