> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>
> 1) Sync writes will land on disk randomly into nearest
> (to disk heads) available blocks, in order to have them
> committed ASAP;
This is true - but you need to make the distin
2012-01-08 5:45, Richard Elling wrote:
I think you will see a tradeoff on the read side of the mixed read/write
workload.
Sync writes have higher priority than reads so the order of I/O sent to the disk
will appear to be very random and not significantly coalesced. This is the
pathological worst
On 01/08/12 18:21, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Something else to be aware of is that even if you don't have a dedicated
ZIL device, zfs will create a ZIL using devices in the main pool so
Terminology nit: The log device is a SLOG. Every ZFS dataset has a
ZIL. Where the ZIL writes (slog or main p
>If the performance of the outer tracks is better than the performance of the
>inner tracks due to limitations of magnetic density or rotation speed (not
>being limited by the head speed or bus speed), then the sequential
>performance of the drive should increase as a square function, going towar
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
If you don't split out your ZIL separate from the storage pool, zfs already
chooses disk blocks that it believes to be optimized for minimal access
time. In fact, I believe, zfs will dedicate a few sectors at the low end, a
few at the high end, and v
2012-01-08 18:56, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
Disagree. My data, and the vendor specs, continue to show different
sequential
media bandwidth speed for inner vs outer cylinders.
Any reference?
Well, Richard's data matches mine with tests of m
> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
>
> > Also, the concept of "faster tracks of the HDD" is also incorrect. Yes,
> > there was a time when HDD speeds were limited by rotational speed and
> > magnetic density, so the outer tracks of the disk could serve up more
data
> > becau
On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>>
>> For smaller systems such as laptops or low-end servers,
>> which can house 1-2 disks, would it make sense to dedicate
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>
>For smaller systems such as laptops or low-end servers,
> which can house 1-2 disks, would it make sense to dedicate
> a 2-4Gb slice to the ZIL for the data pool, separate fro
Hello all,
For smaller systems such as laptops or low-end servers,
which can house 1-2 disks, would it make sense to dedicate
a 2-4Gb slice to the ZIL for the data pool, separate from
rpool? Example layout (single-disk or mirrored):
s0 - 16Gb - rpool
s1 - 4Gb - data-zil
s3 - *Gb - data pool
10 matches
Mail list logo
