Re: [zfs-discuss] Raidz2 slow read speed (under 5MB/s)

2011-07-22 Thread Jonathan Chang
Nevermind this, I destroyed the raid volume, then checked each hard drive one by one, and when I put it back together, the problem fixed itself. I'm now getting 30-60MB/s read and write, which is still slow as heck, but works well for my application. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] Raidz2 slow read speed (under 5MB/s)

2011-07-21 Thread Jonathan Chang
Do you mean that OI148 might have a bug that Solaris 11 Express might solve? I will download the Solaris 11 Express LiveUSB and give it a shot. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://m

Re: [zfs-discuss] Raidz2 slow read speed (under 5MB/s)

2011-07-21 Thread Orvar Korvar
Have you tried to boot from LiveCD in Solaris 11 Express and compare? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 read performance

2011-01-20 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bueno > > Is it true that a raidz2 pool has a read capacity equal to the slowest disk's IOPs > per second ?? No, but there's a grain of truth there. Random reads: * If you have a single proce

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 vdev width (again)

2010-10-20 Thread Ian Collins
On 10/21/10 07:00 AM, Jeff Bacon wrote: So, Best Practices says "use (N^2)+2 disks for your raidz2". I wanted to use 7 disk stripes not 6, just to try to balance my risk level vs available space. Doing some testing on my hardware, it's hard to say there's a ton of difference one way or the other

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 + spare or raidz3 and no spare for nine 1.5 TB SATA disks?

2010-07-28 Thread Jack Kielsmeier
Thanks, Looks like I'll be using raidz3. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 + spare or raidz3 and no spare for nine 1.5 TB SATA disks?

2010-07-28 Thread Richard Elling
On Jul 28, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: >> The performance will be similar, but in the non-degraded case, the >> raidz3 >> will perform better for small, random reads. > > Why is this? The two will have the same amount of data drives The simple small, random read model for h

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 + spare or raidz3 and no spare for nine 1.5 TB SATA disks?

2010-07-28 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
> The performance will be similar, but in the non-degraded case, the > raidz3 > will perform better for small, random reads. Why is this? The two will have the same amount of data drives Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blo

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 + spare or raidz3 and no spare for nine 1.5 TB SATA disks?

2010-07-28 Thread Richard Elling
On Jul 27, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Jack Kielsmeier wrote: > The only other zfs pool in my system is a mirrored rpool (2 500 gb disks). > This is for my own personal use, so it's not like the data is mission > critical in some sort of production environment. > > The advantage I can see with going wit

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 drive failure zpool will not import

2010-04-17 Thread Kevin Denton
Thanks Richard, I tried removing the replacement drive and received the same error. Output of zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c5d1s0 results in: ke...@opensolaris:~# zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c5d1s0 cannot open '/dev/rdsk/c5d1s0': No such device or address All other drives have 4 readable labels 0-3 I even attempted the o

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 drive failure zpool will not import

2010-04-15 Thread Richard Elling
zpool import can be a little pessimistic about corrupted labels. First, try physically removing the problem disk and try to import again. If that doesn't work, then verify the labels on each disk using: zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c5d1s0 each disk should have 4 readable labels. -- richard On Apr 15,

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-04-01 Thread Carson Gaspar
Brandon High wrote: On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Carson Gaspar > wrote: "Nonsensical" may be a bit strong, but I can see no possible use case where a 3 disk raidz2 isn't better served by a 3-way mirror. Once bp_rewrite is done, you'll be able add disks to

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-04-01 Thread Brandon High
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Carson Gaspar wrote: > "Nonsensical" may be a bit strong, but I can see no possible use case where > a 3 disk raidz2 isn't better served by a 3-way mirror. > Once bp_rewrite is done, you'll be able add disks to the raidz2. I suppose that's one reason? -B -- Br

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-04-01 Thread Carson Gaspar
Cindy Swearingen wrote: If someone new to ZFS wants to take 3 old (but reliable) disks and make a raidz2 configuration for testing, we would not consider this is a nonsensical idea. You can then apply what you learn about ZFS space allocation and redundancy to a new configuration. "Nonsensical

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-04-01 Thread Cindy Swearingen
Behalf Of *Bruno Sousa *Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:28 PM *To:* Freddie Cash *Cc:* ZFS filesystem discussion list *Subject:* Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with 3 disks came from the reading of http://docs.sun.co

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-04-01 Thread Cindy Swearingen
filesystem discussion list *Subject:* Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with 3 disks came from the reading of http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gcvjg?a=view . This particular page has the following example : *zpool c

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-31 Thread Bruno Sousa
, for doing this to your poor unfortunate >> readers. It would be nice if the page were a wiki, or somehow able >> to have feedback submitted… >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org >> [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-31 Thread Cindy Swearingen
...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Sousa *Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:28 PM *To:* Freddie Cash *Cc:* ZFS filesystem discussion list *Subject:* Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with 3

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-26 Thread David Magda
On Fri, March 26, 2010 07:38, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> Coolio. Learn something new everyday. One more way that raidz is >> different from RAID5/6/etc. > > Freddie, again, you're wrong. Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to create > either raid-5 or raidz using 2 disks. It's not degraded, but it

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-26 Thread Eric D. Mudama
On Fri, Mar 26 at 7:29, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose of raidz2, as > you will always be in a degraded mode. Freddie, are you nuts? This is false. Sure you can use raidz2 with 3 disks in it. But it does seem pointless to do th

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-26 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
Behalf Of Bruno Sousa Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:28 PM To: Freddie Cash Cc: ZFS filesystem discussion list Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with 3 disks came from the reading of http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-26 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
> Coolio. Learn something new everyday. One more way that raidz is > different from RAID5/6/etc. Freddie, again, you're wrong. Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to create either raid-5 or raidz using 2 disks. It's not degraded, but it does seem pointless to do this instead of a mirror. Likewis

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-26 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
> Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose of raidz2, as > you will always be in a degraded mode. Freddie, are you nuts? This is false. Sure you can use raidz2 with 3 disks in it. But it does seem pointless to do that instead of a 3-way mirror. _

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Carson Gaspar
Freddie Cash wrote: So, is it just a "standard" that hardware/software RAID setups require 3 drives for a RAID5 array? And 4 drives for RAID6? It's padding on the sharp edges. See my earlier post - a 2 disk RAID5 is silly, use a mirror. A 3 disk RAID6 is silly, use a 3-way mirror. Both are

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Freddie Cash
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Mar 25, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Freddie Cash wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa > wrote: > > What do you mean by "Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the > purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degrad

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Richard Elling
On Mar 25, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: > What do you mean by "Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose > of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode" ? Does it means that > having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it w

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Victor Latushkin
On Mar 25, 2010, at 22:10, Freddie Cash wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: What do you mean by "Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode" ? Does it means that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Bruno Sousa
Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with 3 disks came from the reading of http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gcvjg?a=view . This particular page has the following example : *zpool create tank raidz2 c1t0d0 c2t0d0 c3t0d0* # *zpool status -v tank* pool: tank s

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Freddie Cash
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: > What do you mean by "Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the > purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode" ? Does it means > that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't be redundant in the advent of a > drive failure?

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Richard Jahnel
Well the thing I like about raidz3 is that even with 1 drive out you have 3 copies of all the blocks. So if you encounter bit rot, not only can checksums be used to find the good data, you can still get a best 2 out of 3 vote on which data is correct. As to performance, all I can say is test te

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Carson Gaspar
Bruno Sousa wrote: What do you mean by "Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode" ? Does it means that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't be redundant in the advent of a drive failure? Technically a 3 disk raidz2 won't be de

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Bruno Sousa
On 25-3-2010 15:28, Richard Jahnel wrote: > I think I would do 3xraidz3 with 8 disks and 0 hotspares. > > That way you have a better chance of resolving bit rot issues that might > become apparent during a rebuild. > Indeed raidz3...i didn't consider it. In short, a raidz3 could sustain 3 brok

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Bruno Sousa
Hi, What do you mean by "Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode" ? Does it means that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't be redundant in the advent of a drive failure? Indeed it may be too many spares...the discussion here it

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Freddie Cash
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: > Assuming a system with 24 disks available , having in mind reliability as > the crucial factor , secondary the usable space and finally performance > would be the last criteria, what would be the preferable configuration ? > > Should it be :

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 configuration

2010-03-25 Thread Richard Jahnel
I think I would do 3xraidz3 with 8 disks and 0 hotspares. That way you have a better chance of resolving bit rot issues that might become apparent during a rebuild. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@op

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 array FAULTED with only 1 drive down

2010-02-25 Thread Scott Meilicke
You might have to force the import with -f. Scott -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 import, some slices, some not

2010-01-17 Thread Thomas Burgess
> > I am in the middle of converting a FreeBSD > 8.0-Release system to OpenSolaris b130In > order to import my stuff, the only way i knew to make > it work (from testing in virtualbox) was to do > this:label a bunch of drives with an EFI > label by using the opensolaris live cd, then use > those d

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2: only half the read speed?

2009-05-22 Thread Rob Logan
> How does one look at the disk traffic? iostat -xce 1 > OpenSolaris, raidz2 across 8 7200 RPM SATA disks: > 17179869184 bytes (17 GB) copied, 127.308 s, 135 MB/s > OpenSolaris, "flat" pool across the same 8 disks: > 17179869184 bytes (17 GB) copied, 61.328 s, 280 MB/s one raidz2 set of 8 disk

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2: only half the read speed?

2009-05-22 Thread David Abrahams
on Fri May 22 2009, Richard Elling wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: >> http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-fuse/msg/5fac5eaf2c7fccb8 shows some >> (admittedly very crude) tests I did with OpenSolaris 0906, with some >> very surprising performance results. In particular, read speed on an >> 8-disk

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2: only half the read speed?

2009-05-22 Thread Richard Elling
David Abrahams wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-fuse/msg/5fac5eaf2c7fccb8 shows some (admittedly very crude) tests I did with OpenSolaris 0906, with some very surprising performance results. In particular, read speed on an 8-disk pool seemed to drop by 50% when I set up the pool to use

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 group size

2008-09-03 Thread Richard Elling
Brandon High wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Silly me. It is still Monday, and I am coffee challenged. RAIDoptimizer >> is still an internal tool. However, for those who are interested in the >> results >> of a RAIDoptimizer run for 48 d

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 group size

2008-09-03 Thread mike
Yeah, I'm looking at using 10 disks or 16 disks (depending on which chassis I get) - and I would like reasonable redundancy (not HA-crazy redundancy where I can suffer tons of failures, I can power this down and replace disks, it's a home server) and maximize the amount of usable space. Putting up

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 group size

2008-09-02 Thread Brandon High
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Silly me. It is still Monday, and I am coffee challenged. RAIDoptimizer > is still an internal tool. However, for those who are interested in the > results > of a RAIDoptimizer run for 48 disks, see: > http://blogs.sun.c

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 group size

2008-09-02 Thread Richard Elling
Richard Elling wrote: > Barton Fisk wrote: > >> Hi, >> Forgive my ignorance of ZFS, but I have a customer that would like to set up >> three 14+2 raidz2 groups on a new thor with 48 1TB drives (updated thumper) >> so that 42TB for data could be achieved. What performance or other technical >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 group size

2008-09-02 Thread Richard Elling
Barton Fisk wrote: > Hi, > Forgive my ignorance of ZFS, but I have a customer that would like to set up > three 14+2 raidz2 groups on a new thor with 48 1TB drives (updated thumper) > so that 42TB for data could be achieved. What performance or other technical > issues with a stripe 14 disks wid

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 group size

2008-09-02 Thread Ian Collins
Barton Fisk wrote: > Sorry I omitted that CF will be the boot device. Thanks again. > What are you using for redundancy of the boot device? Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 group size

2008-09-02 Thread Barton Fisk
Sorry I omitted that CF will be the boot device. Thanks again. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 group size

2008-09-02 Thread Will Murnane
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 15:39, Barton Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > Forgive my ignorance of ZFS, but I have a customer that would like to set up > three 14+2 raidz2 groups on a new thor with 48 1TB drives (updated thumper) > so that 42TB for data could be achieved. What performance or ot

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 resilience on 3 disks

2008-02-21 Thread Jeff Bonwick
> 1) If i create a raidz2 pool on some disks, start to use it, then the disks' > controllers change. What will happen to my zpool? Will it be lost or is > there some disk tagging which allows zfs to recognise the disks? It'll be fine. ZFS opens by path, but then checks both the devid and the on-d

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 resilience on 3 disks

2008-02-21 Thread Tomas Ögren
On 21 February, 2008 - Justin Vassallo sent me these 10K bytes: > Hello, > > > > 1) If i create a raidz2 pool on some disks, start to use it, then the disks' > controllers change. What will happen to my zpool? Will it be lost or is > there some disk tagging which allows zfs to recognise the di

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 resilience on 3 disks

2008-02-21 Thread James C. McPherson
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:58:55 +0100 Justin Vassallo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) If i create a raidz2 pool on some disks, start to use it, then the > disks' controllers change. What will happen to my zpool? Will it be > lost or is there some disk tagging which allows zfs to recognise the > disks?

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDz2 reporting odd (smaller) size

2008-02-13 Thread Sam
zpool list reports 3.67T, df reports 2.71 which is pretty close to 2.73 so I imagine you guys are right in the difference being 465GB vs 500GB for the size of each disc, guess I'll go pick up another pair :) Thanks! Sam This message posted from opensolaris.org ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDz2 reporting odd (smaller) size

2008-02-13 Thread Mattias Pantzare
2008/2/13, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I saw some other people have a similar problem but reports claimed this was > 'fixed in release 42' which is many months old, I'm running the latest > version. I made a RAIDz2 of 8x500GB which should give me a 3TB pool: > Disk manufacturers use ISO units, w

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDz2 reporting odd (smaller) size

2008-02-13 Thread A Darren Dunham
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 02:48:25PM -0800, Sam wrote: > I saw some other people have a similar problem but reports claimed > this was 'fixed in release 42' which is many months old, I'm running > the latest version. I made a RAIDz2 of 8x500GB which should give me a > 3TB pool: How many sectors on

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2 testing

2007-11-20 Thread Richard Elling
Brian Lionberger wrote: > Is there a preferred method to test a raidz2. > I would like to see the the disks recover on there own after simulating > a disk failure. > I'm have a 4 disk configuration. It really depends on what failure mode you're interested in. The most common failure we see from

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2

2007-11-20 Thread Richard Elling
comment on retries below... Paul Boven wrote: > Hi Eric, everyone, > > Eric Schrock wrote: >> There have been many improvements in proactively detecting failure, >> culminating in build 77 of Nevada. Earlier builds: >> >> - Were unable to distinguish device removal from devices misbehaving, >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2

2007-11-20 Thread Eric Schrock
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Paul Boven wrote: > > I seem to be having exactly the problems you are describing (see my > postings with the subject 'zfs on a raid box'). So I would very much > like to give b77 a try. I'm currently running b76, as that's the latest > sxce that's availab

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2

2007-11-20 Thread Paul Boven
Hi Eric, everyone, Eric Schrock wrote: > There have been many improvements in proactively detecting failure, > culminating in build 77 of Nevada. Earlier builds: > > - Were unable to distinguish device removal from devices misbehaving, > depending on the driver and hardware. > > - Did not dia

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz2

2007-11-19 Thread Eric Schrock
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 04:33:26PM -0700, Brian Lionberger wrote: > If I yank out a disk in a raidz2 4 disk array, shouldn't the other disks > pick up without any errrors? > I have a 3120 JBOD and I went and yanked out a disk and the everything > got hosed. It's okay, because I'm just testing stu

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 vs. ZFS RAID-10

2007-01-08 Thread Richard Elling
Peter Schuller wrote: Is this expected behavior? Assuming concurrent reads (not synchronous and sequential) I would naively expect an ndisk raidz2 pool to have a normalized performance of n for small reads. q.v. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=20942&tstart=0 where suc

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 vs. ZFS RAID-10

2007-01-08 Thread Peter Schuller
> > Is this expected behavior? Assuming concurrent reads (not synchronous and > > sequential) I would naively expect an ndisk raidz2 pool to have a > > normalized performance of n for small reads. > > q.v. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=20942&tstart=0 > where such behavior in

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 vs. ZFS RAID-10

2007-01-05 Thread Richard Elling
Peter Schuller wrote: I've been using a simple model for small, random reads. In that model, the performance of a raidz[12] set will be approximately equal to a single disk. For example, if you have 6 disks, then the performance for the 6-disk raidz2 set will be normalized to 1, and the perform

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 vs. ZFS RAID-10

2007-01-03 Thread Peter Schuller
> I've been using a simple model for small, random reads. In that model, > the performance of a raidz[12] set will be approximately equal to a single > disk. For example, if you have 6 disks, then the performance for the > 6-disk raidz2 set will be normalized to 1, and the performance of a 3-way

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 vs. ZFS RAID-10

2007-01-03 Thread Jason J. W. Williams
Just got an interesting benchmark. I made two zpools: RAID-10 (9x 2-way RAID-1 mirrors: 18 disks total) RAID-Z2 (3x 6-way RAIDZ2 group: 18 disks total) Copying 38.4GB of data from the RAID-Z2 to the RAID-10 took 307 seconds. Deleted the data from the RAID-Z2. Then copying the 38.4GB of data from

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 vs. ZFS RAID-10

2007-01-03 Thread Jason J. W. Williams
Hi Richard, Hmmthat's interesting. I wonder if its worth benchmarking RAIDZ2 if those are the results you're getting. The testing is to see the performance gain we might get for MySQL moving off the FLX210 to an active/passive pair of X4500s. Was hoping with that many SATA disks RAIDZ2 would

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 vs. ZFS RAID-10

2007-01-03 Thread Richard Elling
Jason J. W. Williams wrote: Hello All, I was curious if anyone had run a benchmark on the IOPS performance of RAIDZ2 vs RAID-10? I'm getting ready to run one on a Thumper and was curious what others had seen. Thank you in advance. I've been using a simple model for small, random reads. In tha

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAIDZ2 vs. ZFS RAID-10

2007-01-03 Thread Tomas Ögren
On 03 January, 2007 - Jason J. W. Williams sent me these 0,4K bytes: > Hello All, > > I was curious if anyone had run a benchmark on the IOPS performance of > RAIDZ2 vs RAID-10? I'm getting ready to run one on a Thumper and was > curious what others had seen. Thank you in advance. http://blogs.s