On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Richard Elling> wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
For random io the number of IOPS is 1000/(mean access + avg
rotational
latency) (in ms
On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Richard Elling> wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Joachim Sandvik >
wrote:
does anybody have some numbers on speed on sata vs 15k sas? Is it
really
a big diffe
Tim Cook writes:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Roch Bourbonnais
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Le 4 août 09 à 13:42, Joseph L. Casale a écrit :
> >
> > does anybody have some numbers on speed on sata vs 15k sas?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The next chance I get, I will do a comparison.
> >>
> >> Is it
>>If by 'huge' you mean much more than 10K/7.2K in the data path with otherwise
>>same number of spindles, then
>>that has got to be because of something not specified here.
>>
>
>No it doesn't. The response time on 10k drives is night and day better than
>7.2k drives. VMware workloads look exa
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Joachim Sandvik
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> does anybody have some numbers on speed on sata vs 15k sas? Is it really
>>> a big difference?
>>
>> For random io the numb
On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Joachim Sandvik re...@opensolaris.org> wrote:
does anybody have some numbers on speed on sata vs 15k sas? Is it
really a big difference?
For random io the number of IOPS is 1000/(mean access + avg
rotational lat
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Roch Bourbonnais
wrote:
>
> Le 4 août 09 à 13:42, Joseph L. Casale a écrit :
>
> does anybody have some numbers on speed on sata vs 15k sas?
>>>
>>
>> The next chance I get, I will do a comparison.
>>
>> Is it really a big difference?
>>>
>>
>> I noticed a huge im
On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Joachim Sandvik
wrote:
does anybody have some numbers on speed on sata vs 15k sas? Is it
really a big difference?
For random io the number of IOPS is 1000/(mean access + avg rotational
latency) (in ms)
Avg rotational latency is 1/2 the rotational late
Le 4 août 09 à 13:42, Joseph L. Casale a écrit :
does anybody have some numbers on speed on sata vs 15k sas?
The next chance I get, I will do a comparison.
Is it really a big difference?
I noticed a huge improvement when I moved a virtualized pool
off a series of 7200 RPM SATA discs to ev
On 04/08/2009, at 9:42 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
I noticed a huge improvement when I moved a virtualized pool
off a series of 7200 RPM SATA discs to even 10k SAS drives.
Night and day...
What I would really like to know is if it makes a big difference
comparing say 7200RPM drives in mirro
>does anybody have some numbers on speed on sata vs 15k sas?
The next chance I get, I will do a comparison.
>Is it really a big difference?
I noticed a huge improvement when I moved a virtualized pool
off a series of 7200 RPM SATA discs to even 10k SAS drives.
Night and day...
jlc
_
Thanks for your input, its good to read that not all are to positive. I will do
a lot more testing before i do the final choice.
I have never tested more than 3-5vm's on sata raids, but we use 40x sata with
great result our backup box, but then its only 1 servers.
does anybody have some numbe
PM
To: Joachim Sandvik
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Need tips on zfs pool setup..
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Joachim Sandvik
wrote:
I am looking at a nas software from nexenta, and after some
initial testing i like what i see. So i think we will
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Joachim Sandvik
> wrote:
>
>> I am looking at a nas software from nexenta, and after some initial
>> testing i like what i see. So i think we will find in funding the budget for
>> a dual setup.
>>
>> We are l
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Joachim Sandvik wrote:
> I am looking at a nas software from nexenta, and after some initial testing
> i like what i see. So i think we will find in funding the budget for a dual
> setup.
>
> We are looking at a dual cpu Supermicro server with about 32gb ram and 2
>
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Joachim Sandvik wrote:
Will the IOPS in the mirrored setup be so good, that a ssd cache
disk might not be needed? And i then might go for 10 x mirror with 2
x 1tb instead of 9? I really dont think that space will be an issue
This really depends on how many synchronous writ
Will the IOPS in the mirrored setup be so good, that a ssd cache disk might not
be needed? And i then might go for 10 x mirror with 2 x 1tb instead of 9? I
really dont think that space will be an issue on this system as we for now are
using about 3tb, and i have been testing compression with gre
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Joachim Sandvik wrote:
We are looking at a dual cpu Supermicro server with about 32gb ram
and 2 x250gb OS disks, 21 x 1TB SATA disks, and 1 x 64gb SSD disk.
The system will use nexenta's auto-cdp which i think are based on
AVS to remote mirror to a system a few miles away.
I am looking at a nas software from nexenta, and after some initial testing i
like what i see. So i think we will find in funding the budget for a dual
setup.
We are looking at a dual cpu Supermicro server with about 32gb ram and 2 x250gb
OS disks, 21 x 1TB SATA disks, and 1 x 64gb SSD disk.
19 matches
Mail list logo
