On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Brent Jones wrote:
There is a little bit of disk activity, maybe a MB/sec on average, and
about 30 iops.
So it seems the hosts are exchanging a lot of data about the snapshot,
but not actually replicating any data for a very long time.
Note that 'zfs send' is a one-way stre
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Brent Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Brent Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Brent Jones wrote:
>>>
I've noticed some extreme performance penalties simply by using snv_128
>>
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Brent Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Brent Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I've noticed some extreme performance penalties simply by using snv_128
>>
>> Does the 'zpool scrub' rate seem similar to before? Do
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Brent Jones wrote:
>
>> I've noticed some extreme performance penalties simply by using snv_128
>
> Does the 'zpool scrub' rate seem similar to before? Do you notice any read
> performance problems? What happens if yo
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Brent Jones wrote:
I've noticed some extreme performance penalties simply by using snv_128
Does the 'zpool scrub' rate seem similar to before? Do you notice any
read performance problems? What happens if you send to /dev/null
rather than via ssh?
Bob
--
Bob Friesenha
