On May 29, 2007, at 2:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no
performance
degradation at all.
All filesystems impose some overhead compared to the rate of raw disk
I/O. It's going to be hard to store data on a disk unless some
kind of
Roch Bourbonnais wrote:
Le 29 mai 07 à 22:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no
performance
degradation at all.
All filesystems impose some overhead compared to the rate of raw disk
I/O. It's going to be hard to store data on a disk un
Le 29 mai 07 à 22:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no
performance
degradation at all.
All filesystems impose some overhead compared to the rate of raw disk
I/O. It's going to be hard to store data on a disk unless some
kind of
fil
On May 29, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Lida Horn wrote:
Point one, the comments that Eric made do not give the complete
picture.
All the tests that Eric's referring to were done through ZFS
filesystem.
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no
performance
degradation at all.
Do
> When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no performance
> degradation at all.
All filesystems impose some overhead compared to the rate of raw disk
I/O. It's going to be hard to store data on a disk unless some kind of
filesystem is used. All the tests that Eric and I have p
Point one, the comments that Eric made do not give the complete picture.
All the tests that Eric's referring to were done through ZFS filesystem.
When sequential I/O is done to the disk directly there is no performance
degradation at all. Second point, it does not take any additional
time in ldi
