> With RAID-Z stripes can be of variable width meaning that, say, a
> single row
> in a 4+2 configuration might have two stripes of 1+2. In other words,
> there
> might not be enough space in the new parity device.
Wow -- I totally missed that scenario. Excellent point.
> I did write up the
> s
Interesting, so the more drive failures you have, the slower the array gets?
Would I be right in assuming that the slowdown is only up to the point where
FMA / ZFS marks the drive as faulted?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss
Robert,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:59:01AM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> To what analysis are you referring? Today the absolute fastest you can
>> resilver a 1TB drive is about 4 hours. Real-world speeds might be half
>> that. In 2010 we'll have 3TB drives meaning it may take a full day to
Adam Leventhal wrote:
I just blogged about triple-parity RAID-Z (raidz3):
http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/triple_parity_raid_z
As for performance, on the system I was using (a max config Sun Storage
7410), I saw about a 25% improvement to 1GB/s for a streaming write
workload. YMMV, but I'd be
Adam Leventhal wrote:
Hey Bob,
MTTDL analysis shows that given normal evironmental conditions, the
MTTDL of RAID-Z2 is already much longer than the life of the computer
or the attendant human. Of course sometimes one encounters unusual
conditions where additional redundancy is desired.
To
On 22.07.09 10:45, Adam Leventhal wrote:
which gap?
'RAID-Z should mind the gap on writes' ?
Message was edited by: thometal
I believe this is in reference to the raid 5 write hole, described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_5_performance
It's not.
So I'm not su
Don't hear about triple-parity RAID that often:
I agree completely. In fact, I have wondered (probably in these
forums), why we don't bite the bullet and make a generic raidzN,
where N is any number >=0.
I agree, but raidzN isn't simple to implement and it's potentially
difficult
to get
Don't hear about triple-parity RAID that often:
Author: Adam Leventhal
Repository: /hg/onnv/onnv-gate
Latest revision: 17811c723fb4f9fce50616cb740a92c8f6f97651
Total changesets: 1
Log message:
6854612 triple-parity RAID-Z
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/onnv-notify/2009-July/
009872.htm
which gap?
'RAID-Z should mind the gap on writes' ?
Message was edited by: thometal
I believe this is in reference to the raid 5 write hole, described
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_5_performance
It's not.
So I'm not sure what the 'RAID-Z should mind the gap
Hey Bob,
MTTDL analysis shows that given normal evironmental conditions, the
MTTDL of RAID-Z2 is already much longer than the life of the
computer or the attendant human. Of course sometimes one encounters
unusual conditions where additional redundancy is desired.
To what analysis are yo
> Enterprises will not care about ease so much as they
> have dedicated professionals to pamper their arrays.
Enterprises can afford the professionals. I work for a fairly large bank which
can, and does, afford a dedicated storage team.
On the other hand, no enterprise can afford downtime. Whe
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, chris wrote:
That would be nice. Before developers worry about such exotic
features, I would rather that they attend to the gross performance
issues so that zfs performs at least as well as Windows NTFS or Linux
XFS in all common cases.
To each their own.
I was referring
>That would be nice. Before developers worry about such exotic
>features, I would rather that they attend to the gross performance
>issues so that zfs performs at least as well as Windows NTFS or Linux
>XFS in all common cases.
To each their own.
A FS that calculates and writes parity onto dis
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/onnv-notify/2009-July/009872.html
second bug, its the same link like in the first post.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.or
> which gap?
>
> 'RAID-Z should mind the gap on writes' ?
>
> Message was edited by: thometal
I believe this is in reference to the raid 5 write hole, described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_5_performance
RAIDZ should avoid this via it's Copy on Write model:
http:
which gap?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
In response to:
>> I don't see much similarity between mirroring and raidz other than
>> that they both support redundancy.
Martin wrote:
> A single parity device against a single data device is, in essence, mirroring.
> For all intents and purposes, raid and mirroring with this configuration are
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Martin wrote:
I don't see much similarity between mirroring and raidz other than
that they both support redundancy.
A single parity device against a single data device is, in essence,
mirroring. For all intents and purposes, raid and mirroring with
this configuration ar
> I don't see much similarity between mirroring and raidz other than
> that they both support redundancy.
A single parity device against a single data device is, in essence, mirroring.
For all intents and purposes, raid and mirroring with this configuration are
one and the same.
> A RAID syste
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Martin wrote:
In fact, get rid of mirroring, because it clearly is a variant of
raidz with two devices. Want three way mirroring? Call that raidz2
I don't see much similarity between mirroring and raidz other than
that they both support redundancy.
Let's not stop ther
> Don't hear about triple-parity RAID that often:
I agree completely. In fact, I have wondered (probably in these forums), why
we don't bite the bullet and make a generic raidzN, where N is any number >=0.
In fact, get rid of mirroring, because it clearly is a variant of raidz with
two devices
Don't hear about triple-parity RAID that often:
> Author: Adam Leventhal
> Repository: /hg/onnv/onnv-gate
> Latest revision: 17811c723fb4f9fce50616cb740a92c8f6f97651
> Total changesets: 1
> Log message:
> 6854612 triple-parity RAID-Z
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/onnv-notify/2009-July/009
22 matches
Mail list logo
