Now, RAIDZn should beat RAID-5 since it tends to queue up writes until
it can write a full stripe at once (right?)
correct.
so you will get _less_
writes required, but it still has the same problem for sparse writes
(i.e. small writes spaced far apart on the disk layout, where writes t
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Keith Clay wrote:
Folks,
Would it be wise to buy 2 jbod box and place one side of the mirror
on each one? Would that make sense?
Of course that makes sense. Doing so will give you chassis-level
redundancy. If one JBOD were to, say, lose power or in some way
Folks,
Would it be wise to buy 2 jbod box and place one side of the mirror
on each one? Would that make sense?
Also, we are looking at SATA to FC to hook into our san. Any
comments/admonitions/advice?
keith
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-dis
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
Randy Bias wrote:
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 ran
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 09:41 +0200, Roch wrote:
> Erik Trimble writes:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:51 -0700, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
> > > Keith Clay wrote:
> > > > We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server
> runs
> > > > on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores t
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
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
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 the performance characteristic of single
device. That rul
Erik Trimble writes:
> On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:51 -0700, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
> > Keith Clay wrote:
> > > We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server runs
> > > on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores to zfs and continue to have
> > > checksum errors -- they
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 10:51 -0700, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
> Keith Clay wrote:
> > We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server runs
> > on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores to zfs and continue to have
> > checksum errors -- they are corrected but this improves on th
Keith Clay wrote:
We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server runs
on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores to zfs and continue to have
checksum errors -- they are corrected but this improves on the ufs inode
errors that require system shutdown and fsck.
So, I am recomm
Folks,
We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server
runs on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores to zfs and continue to
have checksum errors -- they are corrected but this improves on the
ufs inode errors that require system shutdown and fsck.
So, I am recommending
13 matches
Mail list logo
