On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
>>>
>>> Can anyone else confirm or deny the correctness of this statement?
>>
>> As I understand it that's the whole point of raidz. Each block is its
>> own
>> stripe.
>
> Nope, that doesn't
On Jul 23, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
>>>
>>> Can anyone else confirm or deny the correctness of this statement?
>>
>> As I understand it that's the whole point of raidz. Each block is its
>> own
>> stripe.
>
> Nope, that doesn't
> From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
> >
> > Can anyone else confirm or deny the correctness of this statement?
>
> As I understand it that's the whole point of raidz. Each block is its
> own
> stripe.
Nope, that doesn't count for confirmation. It is at least theoretically
possible to
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Robert Milkowski [mailto:mi...@task.gda.pl]
[In raidz] The issue is that each zfs filesystem block is basically
spread across
n-1 devices.
So every time you want to read back a single fs block you need to wait
for all n-1 devices to provide you with a part of it
> From: Robert Milkowski [mailto:mi...@task.gda.pl]
>
> [In raidz] The issue is that each zfs filesystem block is basically
> spread across
> n-1 devices.
> So every time you want to read back a single fs block you need to wait
> for all n-1 devices to provide you with a part of it - and keep in m
On 22/07/2010 03:25, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Robert Milkowski
I had a quick look at your results a moment ago.
The problem is that you used a server with 4GB of RAM + a raid card
w
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Robert Milkowski
> >
> I had a quick look at your results a moment ago.
> The problem is that you used a server with 4GB of RAM + a raid card
> with
> a 256MB of cache.
> Then your filesize for
There is a common misconception about the comparison between
mirror and raidz.
You get the same performance, when you use the same number of disks.
But the resulting filesystem has a different sizre, therefore a comparison
is not applicable.
Example: you have 8 disks
Compare a zpool with one
On 21/07/2010 15:40, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of v
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
same perf
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of v
>
> for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
> one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
> same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Mostly, yes. Traditionl RAID-5 is likely to be faster than ZFS
because of ZFS doing checksumming, having the ZIL etc, but then,
trad raid5 won't have the safety offered by ZFS
The biggest difference is almost surely that ZFS will always
const
On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:46 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> Hi,
>> for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
>> one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
>> same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to on
- Original Message -
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 6:12 AM, v wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
> > one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
> > same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical
On Jul 20, 2010, at 6:12 AM, v wrote:
> Hi,
> for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to one
> physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has same
> performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical disk's ipos.
On reads, no, any part of
On 20/07/2010 11:46, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi,
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical
disk's i
- Original Message -
> Hi,
> for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
> one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
> same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical
> disk's ipos.
Mostly, yes. Traditionl RAID-5 is li
Hi,
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to one
physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has same
performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical disk's ipos.
Regards
Victor
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
17 matches
Mail list logo
