On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Felix Buenemann
wrote:
>
> Am 19.02.10 20:50, schrieb Bob Friesenhahn:
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
Too bad, I'm getting ~1000 IOPS with an Intel X25-M G2 MLC and around
300 with a regular USB stick, so 50 IOPS is really poor for
> "el" == Eugen Leitl writes:
el> Wouldn't it be better investing these 300-350 EUR into 16
el> GByte or more of system memory, and a cheap UPS?
If you think the UPS is good enough that you never have to worry about
your machine rebooting then the extra memory isn't needed to match t
On 20/02/2010 01:34, Rob Logan wrote:
This would probably work given that your computer never crashes
in an uncontrolled manner. If it does, some data may be lost
(and possibly the entire pool lost, if you are unlucky).
the pool would never be at risk, but when your server
reboots, its c
Am 20.02.10 01:33, schrieb Toby Thain:
On 19-Feb-10, at 5:40 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17:29PM +0100, Felix Buenemann wrote:
I found the Hyperdrive 5/5M, which is a half-height drive bay sata
ramdisk with battery backup and auto-backup to compact flash at power
failur
On 20 feb 2010, at 02.34, Rob Logan wrote:
>
>> An UPS plus disabling zil, or disabling synchronization, could possibly
>> achieve the same result (or maybe better) iops wise.
> Even with the fastest slog, disabling zil will always be faster...
> (less bytes to move)
>
>> This would probably w
> These are the same as the acard devices we've discussed here
> previously; earlier hyperdrive models were their own design. Very
> interesting, and my personal favourite, but I don't know of anyone
> actually reporting results yet with them as ZIL.
Here's one report:
http://www.mail-archive.co
> An UPS plus disabling zil, or disabling synchronization, could possibly
> achieve the same result (or maybe better) iops wise.
Even with the fastest slog, disabling zil will always be faster...
(less bytes to move)
> This would probably work given that your computer never crashes
> in an uncon
On 19-Feb-10, at 5:40 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17:29PM +0100, Felix Buenemann wrote:
I found the Hyperdrive 5/5M, which is a half-height drive bay sata
ramdisk with battery backup and auto-backup to compact flash at power
failure.
Promises 65,000 IOPS and thus should
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:51:29PM +0100, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
>
> On 19 feb 2010, at 23.40, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17:29PM +0100, Felix Buenemann wrote:
> >> I found the Hyperdrive 5/5M, which is a half-height drive bay sata
> >> ramdisk with battery backup and auto-
On 19 feb 2010, at 23.40, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17:29PM +0100, Felix Buenemann wrote:
>
>> I found the Hyperdrive 5/5M, which is a half-height drive bay sata
>> ramdisk with battery backup and auto-backup to compact flash at power
>> failure.
>> Promises 65,000 IOPS a
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17:29PM +0100, Felix Buenemann wrote:
> I found the Hyperdrive 5/5M, which is a half-height drive bay sata
> ramdisk with battery backup and auto-backup to compact flash at power
> failure.
> Promises 65,000 IOPS and thus should be great for ZIL. It's pretty
> reasona
Am 19.02.10 21:29, schrieb Marion Hakanson:
felix.buenem...@googlemail.com said:
I think I'll try one of thise inexpensive battery-backed PCI RAM drives from
Gigabyte and see how much IOPS they can pull.
Another poster, Tracy Bernath, got decent ZIL IOPS from an OCZ Vertex unit.
Dunno if that
felix.buenem...@googlemail.com said:
> I think I'll try one of thise inexpensive battery-backed PCI RAM drives from
> Gigabyte and see how much IOPS they can pull.
Another poster, Tracy Bernath, got decent ZIL IOPS from an OCZ Vertex unit.
Dunno if that's sufficient for your purposes, but it loo
On Fri, February 19, 2010 13:50, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>> Too bad, I'm getting ~1000 IOPS with an Intel X25-M G2 MLC and around
>>> 300 with a regular USB stick, so 50 IOPS is really poor for an SLC SSD.
>>
>> Well, but the Intel X25-M is the dri
Am 19.02.10 20:50, schrieb Bob Friesenhahn:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Too bad, I'm getting ~1000 IOPS with an Intel X25-M G2 MLC and around
300 with a regular USB stick, so 50 IOPS is really poor for an SLC SSD.
Well, but the Intel X25-M is the drive that really first crac
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Too bad, I'm getting ~1000 IOPS with an Intel X25-M G2 MLC and around
300 with a regular USB stick, so 50 IOPS is really poor for an SLC SSD.
Well, but the Intel X25-M is the drive that really first cracked the
problem (earlier high-performance dri
On Fri, February 19, 2010 12:50, Felix Buenemann wrote:
>
> Too bad, I'm getting ~1000 IOPS with an Intel X25-M G2 MLC and around
> 300 with a regular USB stick, so 50 IOPS is really poor for an SLC SSD.
Well, but the Intel X25-M is the drive that really first cracked the
problem (earlier high-p
Am 19.02.10 19:30, schrieb Bob Friesenhahn:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Felix Buenemann wrote:
So it is apparent, that the SSD has really poor random writes.
But I was under the impression, that the ZIL is mostly sequential
writes or was I misinformed here?
Maybe the cache syncs bring the device to
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Felix Buenemann wrote:
So it is apparent, that the SSD has really poor random writes.
But I was under the impression, that the ZIL is mostly sequential writes or
was I misinformed here?
Maybe the cache syncs bring the device to it's knees?
That's what it seems like. T
Hi,
I'm currently testing a Mtron Pro 7500 16GB SLC SSD as a ZIL device and
seeing very poor performance for small file writes via NFS.
Copying a source code directory with around 4000 small files to the ZFS
pool over NFS without the SSD log device yields around 1000 IOPS (pool
of 8 sata sha
20 matches
Mail list logo
